The following is attributed to Pete Rose, sometime in the 1980s:
I wake up in the morning feeling sick as a dog. I don't want to go play. Then I make it to the ballpark, see my uniform hanging in my locker, and I start feeling a lot better. Then I see some of you guys [referring to reporters], and I feel sick again.
Now that is a dead-on summary of my debate experience of last night. I didn't want to watch the debate last night, mainly because I keep coming back to a very, very sad impression that John McCain is doing just about everything in his power to lose this election. Then, I catch about two-thirds of the debate between radio and TV. What did I think?
I saw a fired-up John McCain. I saw an on the attack John McCain. And most importantly and refreshingly, I saw a very conservative John McCain. Did he attack as hard as I would have? No. Did he make every single last point that I would have? No. Did he call Barack Obama on the carpet for being an anti-American Marxist? Certainly not as bitingly as I would have. Example - here's how I in John McCain's shoes would have addressed the topic of the New Soviet Man's association with the Old Soviet Man, William Ayres:Senator Obama, while I was being imprisoned and tortured by the Communist
enemies of our Nation along with hundreds of other brave Americans, and 58,000
of my countrymen were giving their lives in service to the United States, William Ayres was setting his bombs and supporting the Communist enemies of our great Nation. And that, Mr. Obama, is unacceptable to me, it is unacceptable to the American people, it is a total disgrace, and it can't be changed or mitigated whether you were eight, eighteen, or eighty years old at the time.
So, did I think McCain won the debate? Yes. Do I think he could have been more effective. Yes. Debate over, and I'm feeling good.
Then, here comes the parade of pundits. It's unusual that I have to shut off the Fox News Channel because I can't stand the absolute drivel coming out of the talking heads on the air, but last night I did. Fred Barnes, Bill Kristol, and Charles Krauthammer - conservative contributors - are all talking down McCain's performance!
YOU FOOLS. Talk up the man! Don't point out what he failed to do, point out what he did do, and keep on the attack in his stead! With friends like these, who needs enemies?
“McCain was completely incapable of sustaining any momentum, and clumsily returned again and again to his "Joe the Plumber" gimmick. It was clear that John had "jumped the shark" when he began talking directly to the unseen "Joe", and congratulating him for being "rich". I think he realized too that he had blown his "last best chance". His eyes started flittering back and forth like he was lost and scared, and he began to make the faces that have been the source of so much speculation regarding his temperament and stability.”
ReplyDeleteRead more at SERENDIPITY.
Thanks for stopping by, wrong as you are. The frankly despicable attacks on Mr. Wurzelbacher by the New Soviet Man, the Plagiarist, and their fawning co-conspirators in the MSM just go to show that the Left loathes ordinary people who work hard, try to build businesses, and just want our Nation to return to its Constitution and get government out of our ways and lives.
ReplyDeleteFunny though isn't it that in the last 24 hours the media has been able to crawl into every aspect of Mr. Wurzelbacher's life and smear it all over their front pages and news programs when they haven't done one whit of investigation of the New Soviet Man's radical associations in the four years he's been on the national stage?
By the way, since "Joseph" is actually Mr. Wurzelbacher's middle name, is it OK then if we can just refer to the New Soviet Man as Hussein Obama?
A comment by Mr. Merge Divide has been removed due to profanity.
ReplyDeleteYou mean removed for challenging your the party line, eh?
ReplyDeleteHmmm.. after removing the very mild "profanity", which by the way, merely described the filth that comes from a male cow's posterior.. . let's see if you'll censor this
ReplyDelete"New Soviet Man"... is that what the GOP is having their shock troops call it nowadays?
"The definition of "socialism" is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".
How do you read progressive taxation into this? I guess I am asking you a rhetorical question, because I know the answer to this already. You've had that shoved down your throat by the Far Right for decades. That's why those folks are so anti-intellectual... so you won't know that they are lying to you.
Honestly, this is one of my absolutely greatest pet peeves, and if you search my blog, you'll find that I have dedicated an entire post to this (substitute NONSENSE for said "profanity") propaganda. It looks like I may have to do another.
In the US... in what has always been referred to as a "Capitalist" country, the vast majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation. SOURCE
If you are dead-set in changing the definition of the word "socialism" to include progressive taxation, then you have to accept that the USA has been socialist since 1862, when the first progressive income tax was passed in this nation SOURCE. It is therefore an AMERICAN VALUE that has carried us through the development of the country as a superpower. Have it your way, and if you are against it, you are ANTI-AMERICAN.
SERENDIPITY
This is veering off the original topic greatly (typical liberal "seminar caller" tactic - when your positions are indefensible, try bringing up a new scree which also will ultimately be indefensible), but a progressive income tax - and progressive taxation of any form whatsoever - is clearly against the spirit of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the Constitution as well as the original intent of the framers as can be found in Federalist 30-36 (Hamilton).
ReplyDeleteThe citation of the AEA study is hardly a convincing one, as a citation of a study of economists who are members of the Club for Growth would be to a leftist. The AEA is a wholely academic institution. Since only 26.4% of their anticipated sample actually responded, and the sample base is assuredly skewed leftward to begin with, the rate of support for progressive taxation found by this flawed study is hardly surprising.
What is surprising is that this study only found a 2.5:1 registration advantage as Democrats.
The study can not be accurately depicted as showing the beliefs of "economists", only "economic academics".
As to my "New Soviet Man" characterization (mine alone as far as I know. My implant that recieves instructions from Karl Rove sadly has stopped working), if it looks like a duck (see the "Hope" and "Change" posters), talks like a duck, associates with ducks, is advised by ducks, acts like a duck, and has been endorsed by duck-loving fringe parties, well then it's a duck.
Interesting though that my original story of dismay with, at best, tepid post-debate support coming from commentators on theoretically on my side of the aisle has morphed into this.
New comments will not be approved unless they're pertinent to the original topic.
Well... considering I am the only one responding to your post, should it really matter that we are "veering off the original topic"?
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with legitimizing a study of "economic academics". For you to suggest that those teaching economics in our colleges and universities are somehow irrelevant is to reveal your extreme bias against education and intellectualism. Are you trying to imply that economists working outside of the university system are more objective? That's preposterous. Who pays their salary?
Lay off the folksy clichés. They do nothing for your argument.
I can see why you might censor my comment as I am obviously distracting all of your other readers from the topic at hand. No problem. I won't take it personally. I don't mind getting out of the way of all the other would-be participants of your blog.