Hey Obama: What Ruckus? I Didn't Hear Any Ruckus. Could You Describe the Ruckus?

Obama said Friday: "I know there's been a lot of attention paid to some of the town hall meetings that are going on around the country, especially when tempers flare. TV loves a ruckus. You've got to be careful about those cable networks."

Hey Obama: As a member of Generation X who grew up in middle America watching John Hughes movies, I can honestly say that you do not connect with me at all, and so please kindly stop telling me which kinds of television I should be watching and where I should be getting my news. I mean, who the hell do you think you are, anyway? And BTW, you're damn right there's a ruckus going on. It's the sound of masses of non-liberal, non-conservative folks who have never been political in their lives suddenly become politically energized. And it's all in reaction to the ultra-liberal path down which you and your party are trying to take the country and ram right down our throats. What, do you think we're just going to shut up and take it? That ain't happenin'.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.228e42c5948115405d6f3ec5d1ad6b50.1a1&show_article=1

It Was 40 Years Ago Today!

Woodstock. Sure, there were major sanitation and facility problems, drug use, equipment failures, etc. But it was the Zenith event of that era in my estimation. Not being born until later, I sure wish I could have attended just to take in the pure spectacle of that event, not to mention a chance to see three wonderful things that I could never see because of untimely deaths in the years that followed: (1) Keith Moon playing drums; (2) Jimi Hendrix playing guitar; and (3) Janis Joplin singing and performing. Damn right.

http://www.kansascity.com/934/gallery/1379032.html

Twitter Fight! (Good grief.)

They had it right at first. Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.), who obviously disagree on Obama & The Dems' health care reform plan, got on the phone to talk about it. Nothing apparently being resolved during that conversation, did they agree to just disagree? No. Did they resolve to schedule a second call? No. Instead, they start dropping 140-character tweets directed at each other. Grow up, dudes. You're elected officials, not some silly blogger (like me) or Rudy Cazooti off the street. Just because Sarah Palin has become a celebrity through this kind of foolishness doesn't mean you have to follow her lead.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/anneschroeder/0809/Twitter_fight_between_Grassley_and_Specter.html

Bizarre comments today from Daily Beast's Tina Brown regarding Hillary's weight, lack of gym time.

As described in Newsbusters.org (link below), Brown (pictured above) made the following statement on MSNBC this morning:

"What's wrong with Hillary is one week too long on this African hellish tour that she's on. Think of it from the human point of view: she is in her second week. She's hot. She is feeling fat. She had this horrible business where she suddenly lost it a bit over the whole Bill thing. Frankly, I want to get her home now. I want to get her home. Otherwise, by the time she hits Liberia, she's going to be saying: 'what can I tell you? We had an idiot for the president!' She's letting it hang out . . . She ought to get back to the gym!"

OK, maybe Hillary has put on a few pounds, but what does Brown care? I might chalk it up to Brown being one of the many on the far left who hate Hillary, but I think there's probably something different in play here given the MSNBC context: If you hang around a loony bin, don't be surprised if you go a little bananas yourself.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2009/08/13/tina-brown-african-bloopers-feeling-fat-hillary-needs-get-back-gym

Oba-ttoming Out, Part 4: Independents leaving Obama right and left (literally).

Of course the headline today is that Obama's job approval rating has hit a new low of 47% in the Rasmussen poll. But my focus is more on some of the numbers behind that number. Predictably, 77% of repubs disapprove of Obama's job performance and 78% of dems approve of it. But look at us Independents. 65% of Independents disapprove of Obama's job performance (link below), which is the lowest I've seen and almost certainly accounts for the new overall low of 47%. I try to communicate to dems all the time that middle America does not like such things as (just to list a few notable examples) (1) the White House asking citizens to turn in other citizens who disagree with Obama & the Dems, (2) multiple massive pieces of ultra-liberal legislation being ram-rodded through Congress without anyone bothering to read it, (3) politicians calling us nazis, right-wing extremists, mobs and brown-shirters if we have the audacity to disagree with them or to voice our concern with their legislation. But you folks don't listen. You just don't get it, in the words of Claire McCaskill. And you will fail as a result.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Here's one democrat who gets it.

Check out today's commentary on Salon.com from author and professor Camille Paglia (pictured), a democrat. There are certainly some things in there with which I wouldn't agree, and she's a bit long-winded for my tastes. But she exhibits an independence of thought that I very much respect. Here's just a sampling:

"And what do Democrats stand for, if they are so ready to defame concerned citizens as the 'mob' -- a word betraying a Marie Antoinette delusion of superiority to ordinary mortals. I thought my party was populist, attentive to the needs and wishes of those outside the power structure. And as a product of the 1960s, I thought the Democratic party was passionately committed to freedom of thought and speech. But somehow liberals have drifted into a strange servility toward big government, which they revere as a godlike foster father-mother who can dispense all bounty and magically heal all ills. The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable 'casual conversations' to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it."

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index2.html

Obama & The Dems: Stop talking to me about "special interests" being behind the townhall anger, because it only riles me up.

First, it's false. The angry people attending these events are real, not insurance company, GOP, conservative group, or "special interest" plants. Second, "special interest" lobbyists of your persuasion drafted these various massive versions for your health care reform plan. Your party is just in bed with "special interests" as the repubs, same as it ever was. I mean, stop insulting my intelligence over here! The best part of this anger and rebellion against the way you and the dems are trying to take us down a radical left path for the country: It shows that people are finally startin' to wake up! People who haven't been political their entire lives are becoming political because they realize something very extreme and radical is trying to be forced down their throats by the dems. Look no further than me for an example. I've been only nominally interested in political issues my entire life, but the stuff I saw going on from these dems from the day Obama took office actually inspired me to start a blog and get this whole thing goin'. There's something unprecedented going on right now in this country (and I'm not talking about what the dems are trying to do, although that's unprecedented too). The non-liberal, non-conservative masses are being energized. Thank God.

Smart politics.

At his townhall meeting today in New Hampshire (pictured above), it looks like Obama stacked the crowd with mostly supporters of his health care reform plan (for example, three-fourths of the tickets were given out by the White House). To be sure, it would have been great theater if a bunch of the vocal opponents had been present, but how dumb politically would it have been for the White House to allow that? And as I've credited him previously in this space, Obama makes very few political mistakes (regardless of what one might think of his policies), and today was just another example.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26014.html

"UN-AMERICAN"!!!

I bet you were anticipating another anti-Pelosi rant, weren't you? Well, not this time. Today when I saw the Drudge headline that "Pelosi/Hoyer call townhall protesters 'un-American,'" I figured I probably had my next Loony Left-Winger of the Day (Pelosi provides a lot of great material for that feature) and clicked to the story. Turns out that she and Hoyer (in an op-ed in today's USA Today) instead said "drowning out opposing views is simply un-American" -- targeting the behavior of those protesters who have tried to shout down the politicians without given them much of a chance to speak. That seems to me to be a far cry from saying that the protesters at these events, as a general matter, are all "un-American."

This is why one has to take anything seen on Drudge and Fox News with a grain of salt. (FoxNews.com had a similar headling stating, "In a tight spot, Pelosi calls health care critics un-American"). Those websites come at you from a right-wing slant (yes, just like such outfits as MSNBC, ABC, CNN, CBS, New York Times, etc., hit you with a left-wing slant). In this instance, the headlines used by Drudge and Fox News were downright misleading, at least in my view. And I would expect that plenty of repub politicians are putting a similarly misleading spin on this today as well.

To address the substance of what Pelosi and Hoyer actually said: I don't agree with it on its face, but it doesn't outrage me. As stated previously in this space, I don't think shouting down politicians as they try to speak accomplishes anything. I would agree that such behavior is inappropriate and uncivil. But does it rise to the level of being "un-American"? No, I think that's a gross overstatement. Sometimes we all get angry. Sometimes we all lose our tempers. Does that make all of us "un-American"? I think not.

Finally, I note that while I might not have been outraged by the statement, I do think it was pretty dumb politically (see linked Politico blog). Using the word "un-American" in any context related to the townhall protesters just gives repubs something they can spin in the same way that Drudge and Fox News did. A similar observation with respect to protesters who engage in the "shouting down" behavior: That just gives the far left material that they can spin into their propaganda. To close, I'm sorry again not to use today's statement to go on a Pelosi rant. I'll leave that to the republicans.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennthrush/0809/PelosiHoyer_Town_hall_distruptions_unAmerican.html

Obama "out of synch" with a majority of the country? No!!!

Actually, I think that's been one of my main talking points since Day 1 in this blog (with respect to both Obama and the democratic party -- although I believe the same is also true of the republican party). All you had to do was take a look at Obama's voting record in the Senate to know that this was a bona fide (and as it's turning out, radical) liberal who was not going to try to run this country from a mainstream, center-left location.

Most dems, of course, would never admit these simple truths, and that's why I credit democrat columnist and talking head Douglas Schoen (pictured) for an excellent online column today (link below) on this very subject. One highlight: "The reason for [Obama's declining poll numbers] is simple: Mr. Obama, despite his popularity, is proposing policies that are out of sync with a center-right electorate. Specifically, only two in ten Americans are liberal, close to four in ten are conservative and a third are moderate. However, a poll conducted by Scott Rasmussen last week shows that nearly half of all Americans now identify Mr. Obama as being 'very liberal' -- up 15 points from January."

Now, while I did not vote for Obama (nor McCain), I don't criticize for a minute all the non-liberals in this country who did vote for Obama. I think many of them were in part hoodwinked by Obama's little campaign act of disingenuously holding himself out as some sort of moderate. And I also know that those folks wanted change (I can't blame them) and voted for it. But they weren't voting for this, and that's why Obama has big problems in his polling numbers these days. And that's why we are seeing so much real anger coming out at so many of these town hall meetings over the last week. You won't see me celebrating if we see a repeat of 1994 in terms of huge republican congressional gains over the next few years. But I do know what I will be saying -- you brought it on yourselves, dems. Most Americans do not like extremes, and they will react very negatively if you try to run the country that way. Ain't that America!

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/08/07/obama-needs-new-blueprint/

What plan in Afghanistan? More goobledegook from the Administration.

Today Obama's national security adviser, Gen. Jim Jones, was apparently on Face the Nation (first link below) with a bunch of general, unexplained references to some "plan" and "strategy" allegedly hatched for Afghanistan back in March. That's funny -- I don't recall Obama ever articulating to the American people any plan or objective as to what we're doing in Afghanistan. Instead, he seems to be unable to do so. All we've gotten from Obama are superficial references to "our mission in Afghanistan" and "nation-building." So what was the "March plan," to whom was it announced, and who did the announcing? Regardless -- and this is important -- Jones talked today as if the "March plan" is being followed and will continue to be followed going forward (e.g., "We will see within a year whether this strategy is working and then we will adjust from there.").

Those statements by Jones simply don't jive with a report in the Washington Post today (second link below) stating that the Administration is currently "in the process of overhauling the U.S. approach" in Afghanistan. So which is it? Have we had a "plan" and "strategy" in place since March that we will continue to follow for at least a year (as Jones indicated), or are we developing a brand new plan and strategy (as per the Post report)? And was there ever really any coherent "March plan" in the first place? What a bunch of confusing jibberish from these folks.

And it circles back to a point I've been making for months: Obama needs to tell us precisely what the plan and objective are for Afghanistan. He has not done so, and I don't think it's so much to ask after 200 days in office and with our troops dying in that absolute hellhole every day. Not when we keep ratcheting up American troop levels there (expected to reach 68,000 by year's end -- which is double the 2008 troop presence). Not when many of those brave men and women are being sent for their third, fourth or fifth tours of Afghanistan/Iraq -- many with children growing up that they've barely gotten a chance to know (as discussed on the Sunday morning talk shows today). Not when the U.S. in Afghanistan "is taking on security and political commitments that will last at least a decade and a cost that will probably eclipse the Iraq war" (from the Post report).

Afghanistan is a very serious situation, and I do not see this Administration treating it like one. It appears to be taking a complete backseat to Obama's desire to ram his ultra-left domestic agenda down our throats before any of us ever know what hit us. Obama seems to think that no one is paying any attention to Afghanistan. Well, the American left sure as hell isn't. But I am and will continue to do so in this space.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/09/ftn/main5227986.shtml

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/08/AR2009080802283_pf.html

A few words this weekend for the town hall protesters...

First, I know who most of you are. You are not the "right-wing extremists" or "mobs" that the democrats so dishonestly and so insultingly like to call you. No, I know that most of you are a lot like me -- just regular folks, perhaps a republican or a democrat, but neither conservative nor liberal, and very concerned about the dems' massive health care reform bill that no one has read and the general far left direction that the democrats are trying to take the country and ram right down our throats. Most of you are not GOP plants, nor insurance company operatives, nor conservative group flunkies. I know that, and believe you me, so do the disingenuous democrats. So that being resolved...

If you attend one of these events in the days and weeks to come, do your best to be civil. Shouting down politicians without giving them their chance to speak accomplishes little or nothing, and it only gives propaganda material to the democrats. Instead, let the politicians speak their minds, and politely wait for your turn to be heard. And when that point in time arrives, let 'em have it (but keep in mind also, that oftentimes the best and most biting words do not flow from a shout, but rather from a voice of calm resolve).

Finally, if one of these thugs sent by the democrats' minions shouts at you, try to ignore him/her. You're there to speak your mind, not to pay attention to them or to try to change their minds (which you can't, by the way). Ignore them. And if one punches you in the face as occurred in St. Louis, then punch 'em back. But absent a need to exercise your right of self defense, don't give those freaks the time of day.

Just a few random thoughts as I continue to digest these events and get a grasp for everything that's going on out there.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/laworder/story/0470FEB3219207458625760B001142AC?OpenDocument

An observation this night...

The far left and far right have no idea what to do with someone like me. They both hate me, and yet like that I disagree with the other extreme. And they REALLY don't like people like me comin' outta somewhere from the middle spewing the same kind of anger and rage that tends to be reserved to the B.S. hateful rhetoric that they like to spew towards each other. Well, far left and far right, I'll tell you what you can do with me: You can officially go **** yourselves, equally, BOTH OF YOU, because none of you freaks represent me, nor the majority of the people in this country, in any way, shape or form. I'm comin' out the Generation X, and the majority of us disdain BOTH of you. Because to us, the two of you represent absolutely nothing with respect to the greatest nation in the history of this planet (i.e. The United States of America). Nothing at all, apart from a bunch of hate, third-grade-like-demeanor, mean-spiritedness, and ignorance. So like I said, go **** yourselves, libs and conservatives.

With all the anger out there, it's good to see His Majesty staying on message: When in doubt or when all else fails, blame Bush.

Majesty said today: "I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess." (See first link below). The repubs have, let's see, NO power in the federal government these days, but they're somehow standing in the way? But I digress. During a turbulent time when it would be easy for a politican to stray from core principles and talking points, Majesty keeps returning to the Blame-Bush, "just look at what we inherited," card.

So why am I crediting Majesty here? Because while a lot of us folks out here have moved beyond the Bush years and more and more view the economy as belonging to Majesty himself, he stubbornly refuses to let that old dog go. Just look at the headlines: Today you've got the guy who attacked Twitter blaming the Kremlin (second link below). A year ago, Bush might have been blamed (and you know someone would have tried). In South Florida, a man charged with possessing child pornography on his computer is blaming his cat for downloading the filth (third link below). Two years ago, a Bush conspiracy might have been blamed. But have no fear Majesty, if blaming Bush for everything starts to get old even to your ears, you can always start blaming Bo the Dog similar to the guy in Florida -- same difference.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want-the-folks-who-created-the-mess-to-do-a-lot-of-talking/

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/US-economy-sheds-fewer-jobs-rb-2889844679.html?x=0&.v=3

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/breakingnews/sfl-cat-downloads-porn-bn080709,0,6415792.story

Tonight I have officially turned myself in to the White House since I oppose its health CARE reform plan.

(As sent a few minutes ago...)

Subject: The Rager is turning himself in‏
From: theindependentrage@live.com
Sent: Thu 8/06/09 8:51 PM
To: flag@whitehouse.gov

What up, White House?: In order to streamline the process just a tad, I am officially turning myself in to you tonight as someone who opposes your health CARE reform plan. And I duly qualify to turn myself in because there are plenty of "fishy" things going down on my blog. Check it out: http://independentrage.blogspot.com/ Feel free to take a look at it, leave some comments (I always allow any and all comments), and even smile at the parts of it with which you agree (there should be at least a few). Heck, you can even put it on a list if you want -- I don't care. But I do oppose your health CARE reform plan, and so I felt very much compelled to turn myself in this night in response to the White House's blog post of a few days back. Peace out.

The Independent Rage

There's really no need to put me on a Nixonian Enemies List, Your Majesty.

Because I am not your "enemy," nor are the vast majority of the people who oppose your health CARE reform plan. Rather, we're just folks concerned with the radical left direction that you and your party are trying to take our country. That's the same way it was with the vast majority of the people on Nixon's Enemies List -- not "enemies" in any sense of the word, but instead decent folks who had the nerve to be vocal opponents of Nixon's policies (most particularly, continued U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War). You can keep calling us "radical right-wing extremists" and "mobsters" and the like, and you can even stick us on an Enemies List -- all that demonstrates is that you and your radical friends really just don't get it.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/politics/state/stories/DN-cornynflag_06nat.ART.State.Edition1.4bb4d44.html

Hey Majesty: I happen to oppose your health CARE reform bill. What exactly are you going to do about it, pal?

Today I see that over the last 24 hours, the White House on its official blog is requesting that members of the public forward to the White House any claims that seem "fishy" from those that oppose the dems' health CARE reform bill. The White House blog states: "Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov" (see link below).

So let me get this straight: Here you've got an American president telling citizens to go around looking for people who vocally oppose the dems' health CARE reform plan, and then to go report those people to the federal government? I presume there are two intentions here: (1) Cause people to think twice before vocally opposing the dems' plan (otherwise known as trying to put a chill on free speech); and (2) At the same time gather intelligence on those who are out there opposing the plan. Folks, the only era and word from my lifetime that strikes me as somewhat comparable to what's going on here: N-i-x-o-n-i-a-n. This is ugly, slimey stuff. But don't worry, they can't and won't shut me up any time soon.

Final aside: You have to love how Majesty & the Dems (sounds like a bad 60's garage band lineup) -- obviously after consulting some pollsters -- have this week stopped using the phrase "health care reform." Now they uniformly say "health insurance reform" (see the quote above, for example). Therefore, as exhibited above, I will henceforth capitalize the word "CARE" in all references in this space to the health CARE reform bill. Because that's just the way I roll.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.844cab9dda05a208d45a624ff10c219a.b91&show_article=1

What Til They Get a Load of Me!

This poster has been plastered all over LA this week and now, as a result, on the Net. First, let me just say that this poster represents a fairly low form of political speech, and I personally don't even find it to be that funny. But you have to love the reaction it's garnering from the far left (which is the only reason I'm blogging about it).

For example, how about the President of the LA Urban Policy Roundtable (first link below), Earl Ofari Hutchinson, who says today that the poster "goes beyond political spoofery . . . it is mean-spirited and dangerous." Then Hutchinson issues a "public challenge" (who is he, Vince McMahon?) and demands that the creator of the poster "come forth" and identify himself. And precisely why would that person want to do that, Sir? So that he can get the full-out Sarah Palin treatment? (By the way, the latest in that saga: A blogger yesterday on salon.com compared Palin to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- apparently that's appropriate "political spoofery" since the target is one the far left hates).

You have to love how viciously the far left can dish it out while being so thin-skinned when some of it comes back their way. It starts at the top with perhaps the most thin-skinned president in American history. Today he's using public resources to make videos to respond to postings on the Drudge Report (second link below). So to summarize, apparently it's OK for the far left to go around acting like hateful, mean-spirited morons, but if anyone else does it, Katy Bar the Door! As I like to say: H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s.

http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-obama-posters,0,940643.story

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/25779.html

Reversal! Today the White House says no new middle-class tax increase.

Yesterday these folks were running around saying that they wouldn't rule out a new middle-class tax increase. You gotta love the consistency. Who's running the asylum around there anyway?

The White House's explanation for the flip flop? They say Geithner and Summers were merely engaging in "a little hypothetical back-and-forth" yesterday. Yeah right. Looks to me like it was probably a trial balloon, which having sunk faster than a lead zeppelin the last 24 hours, was quickly disavowed. Majesty's White House seems to love trial balloons, except for the way that many of them tend to come back deflated (e.g., a second stimulus bill, which I'm still waiting on to rear its ugly head again sometime soon).

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/03/obama.economy/index.html

You Made Me Promises, Promises. (You knew you'd never keep)

Great leaders don't make promises just to get elected to an office, but rather only make pledges that they believe and then stick by them. Typical politicians, in contrast, go around breaking their previous promises right and left. And that's what we have in His Majesty -- a typical politician, remarkable only for (1) his political and speechmaking savvy and (2) being the farthest to the left of any American president ever elected. Case in point again this weekend:

Majesty's treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, tells ABC that the administration won't rule out new taxes on the middle class in the middle of an awful recession ("We're going to have to do what's necessary," crowed Geithner (link below)). Flashback to September 2008 on the campaign trail in Dover, New Hampshire. His Majesty declares and pledges that no middle class American family with an annual income of less than $250,000 will see any form of tax increase on his watch. Nevermind that Majesty has already broken this pledge at least twice already (through the tobacco tax and his support of the Cap'n Trade bill) -- this weekend shows that he doesn't care how many times he may break it. If he feels it's "necessary" to furthering his radical left-wing agenda, he'll try to stick those of us in the middle class with a new tax any damn time he feels like it.

Now, brass tacks: If you happen to be in Majesty's camp and support this kind of thing, that's fine and that's your right. But don't you try to tell me as well that is some great American president and one of the greatest leaders in the history of the civilized world. Because he looks pretty ordinary to me.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2009/08/geithner-wont-rule-out-new-taxes-for-middle-class.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJP2PH8WKaI

What strategy???

"Brits slam U.S. strategy in Afghanistan" is the headline on Drudge tonight. That's funny, because His Majesty has not articulated to the American people any particular strategy or objective that's being pursued in Afghanistan. Instead, all we get are occasional generalized, superficial, veiled references to "nation building." That's also funny, since I thought the "nation builders" (errr, Neo-Cons) were kicked out of office last November?

But I digress, because looking at Drudge's linked Breitbart story (first link below) reveals that the Brits (a House of Commons committee) appear to be basically criticizing the U.S. for just what I stated above (as I have been in this space for several months now) -- the lack of ANY coherent strategy or objective whatsoever in Afghanistan. The British committee says that the international mission in Afghanistan has delivered "much less than it promised" due to the lack of any realistic strategy.

So here we are still with the status quo 7 months after His Majesty took office: No one, including Majesty himself, seems to be able to say word one about what the hell we are doing over there. Meantime, 3 Americans died there today, 43 Americans died there in July (by far the deadliest month for Americans since the war started in 2001), and Majesty just continues to ratchet up the troop levels. He has ordered an additional 21,000 troops there, and by year's end our troop presence is expected to reach 68,000 -- double the 2008 American troop presence (see second link below).

I don't know, but is it so much for me to ask and demand some explanation -- any explanation -- as to the plan and objective we are pursuing in an absolute hellhole into which we just keep sending more and more of our boys to die? Imagine the outcry from the far left on this situation if our current president was a republican. Instead, the far left just sits out there largely (if not completely) silent since their hero is running the show. H-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s. As I've stated before, apparently to the American far left, wars without clearly defined plans, goals and objectives are just peachy so long as a beloved democrat is in office. Well, I don't give a rat's behind which extreme is in office -- I ain't shuttin' up about this stuff.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.6c394a230bece3a4943ecb703a1405f3.e01&show_article=1

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-08-01-afghanistan_N.htm?csp=34

Livin' It Up!!! (apparently while he still could)

This week New York Governor David Paterson partied it up all night at a club "just hours before delivering news [to the legislature] of soaring budget deficits and lagging revenues from the recent millionaire's tax." The New York Post further reports: "Stagnant poll numbers, lackluster campaign fund-raising and the threat of a challenge within his own party didn't keep the Democratic governor from enjoying himself at the midweek fiesta."

By the way, the Post's descriptions of this fool are priceless: "The party-hearty Paterson"; "The night-owl chief executive." But the funniest part of this story? That would be the quote from Brooklyn blogger Tionna Smalls -- the person who spoiled the Governor's party by calling Gawker.com after she witnessed Paterson gettin' down at this big shindig: "I have some advice for him. Stay his ass out the clubs." Actually, that's some good advice for most of us (certainly for me). As I always try to remind myself, nothing good ever happens in public after midnight. And kids: Never chew tobacco either.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/07312009/news/regionalnews/states_a_wreck__party__182249.htm

"PR Stunt or Giant Step Forward"?

That was the question posited by Greta Van Susteren tonight. And the answer: Some of both (except for the word "giant"). The motivation for this event was, make no mistake, grounded in His Majesty's effort to calm down a bad situation that was only getting worse for him politically last Friday. And as instantly stated in this space, Majesty's act late last Friday of phoning both men and inviting them to come together at the White House for a beer was a stroke of political genius in order to largely diffuse the whole story in very short order (which to a great extent he accomplished, at least in terms of where this story was quickly headed). So the primary motivation for choreographing this event was "PR stunt".

But let's not be so trite to let the end result and the symbolism of this event totally escape us. The scene and event itself were not a bad picture at all. Despite the political advantageousness to Majesty from this event occurring, we still see the two primary players coming together, shaking hands, talking in a civil fashion, and (dear to my heart) drinking some beer together! And they have now resolved to go forward with a dialogue -- they will talk on the phone this week and then meet again in short order. And what's so wrong with that as an end result? (Folks, do not listen to the far right's drivel and venom tonight about this being a despicable "dog and pony show" -- people of that persuasion always spew such radical spin and are not to be trusted, as made very clear in this space over and over.)

But I digress. The "step forward" and/or lesson learned? That those of us who come from substantially different backgrounds and life experiences and world views would oftentimes be better served to try to get together, share a beer (or other relaxing activity), and just get to know each other -- better served than just screaming at each other in hate, volatile rhetoric, and forgetfulness regarding our common humanity. I could use to learn that lesson myself a lot more, as a person who spews all kinds of anger at the two extremes just like they do towards each other all the time. So bottom line: Not a bad picture, not a bad moment, as an end result at the White House tonight. And I also agree with all the players' sentiments: Let's move on from this whole story.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090730/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_harvard_scholar

Screw Bud Light! Here's what I'd be drinking at today's Beer Summit at the White House...

Keystone Ice, baby! 5.9%, cheap, and as smooth as the door chain in an Alabama $hithouse.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124891169018991961.html?mod=rss_com_mostcommentart