Obots, 0Care, American Values, and Our (Banana) Republic

Obama’s defenders defy logic

One of the most frustrating things about what is going on with 0Care, the numerous and varied White House scandals, the Senate rules change, and the irrefutable revelation that Obama is not only a liar but is completely unapologetic about it is the way that the Obots see all this . . . and dig in to protect and defend him.

I just don’t get it.

In 2007 and 2008. Obama presented himself as post-partisan, a uniter, someone for whom there were no “red states” and no “blue states, ” just the United States.  He repeatedly defended not only the Constitution but also the people; he made it a point of his campaign that he would do so in office while increasing transparency, accountability, and the effectiveness of government.  He failed (if you can call not trying at all failing) on each and every one of these promises.  Indeed, he not only failed but actively worked to deepen and entrench partisanship, to divide this nation not only politically but along race, class, gender, religious, and economic lines.  He’s done more to trash our Constitution than any other president (and I’m including the regressives who preceded him: Wilson and FDR), while not only making the very word “transparency” a national joke but steadfastly refusing to hold anyone in his administration accountable for anything.  Obviously, his presidency has called into serious question the efficacy of big government to do much of anything beyond causing undue and seemingly irreparable harm.

He has proven time and again that he is not the man voters elected in 2008, yet many of these same voters either refuse to see it or, if they do see it, defend him with strained logic, bizarre excuses, and insupportable arguments.  For example, there’s a lot of talk on leftist blogs about how the 0Care fiasco is just like Katrina or just like Iraq.  The thrust is that Obama’s sinking poll numbers are like Bush’s (these posts always miss the fact that President Bush’s numbers fell with the conservative base–who would, in 2009 emerge as the TEA Party–because of his big spending, big government, anti-free market policies; Katrina and Iraq were things that the already-incensed and disapproving radical left wielded as battering rams.).  Whatever.  There is no comparison because there has never been such a radical, indefensible cobweb of lies, fraud, and tyrannical devices perpetrated on the American people as 0Care and this administration’s entire destructive agenda.

Sure, some former Obot cheerleaders have noted that Obama is a liar and a control freak bent on not only spreading propaganda and attacking the First Amendment rights of a free press but is also showing a reckless disregard for the Constitution and the American people.  Given the abundant evidence of all this and more, however, these are few and far between.  Go to any leftist website and read the comments, and you’ll see quickly enough that the Obot crowd is doubling down in their support for their Dear Leader rather than pausing to question the obvious fact that he is not anything like the man they thought they elected.

This often unhinged support for a proven liar and fraud is really puzzling to me.  Is this a self-defense mechanism, maybe?  Like those people we all know who can never manage an apology no matter what they do or say wrong: they just use painfully twisted justifications and those backhanded “I’m sorry if you’re upset” non-apology apologies?  Can these Obots just not bear to be wrong, to have been so obviously tricked by a consummate liar and poser?  There’s no shame in being the victim of fraud.  Are they afraid that they’ll seem less-than-intelligent?  It’s far wiser to admit a mistake and to correct it than to continue denying any mistake at all.  And if they don’t want to appear unintelligent by admitting the obvious, why can’t they see how much more ignorant, uninformed, and yes, stupid they seem now?  Why can’t they see that their mindless, useful idiocy wins only disdain from their messiah?  It’s baffling.

Insurance is not health care

Conservatives have been saying this all along, but even though it’s now crystal clear that one of the primary results of the 0Care monstrosity is that while more people may be “covered,” they are not going to be receiving actual health care, and the few who do, will have long waits and have to travel farther to do so (doctors and hospital limitations necessitate these).  With few choices (and often only one) on the exchanges, Americans are finding that they have not only a limited range of plans to choose from (only four: bronze, silver, gold, and platinum) but will not be able to keep their doctor or even, often, use their nearest local hospital. They’re also paying more for this “free” “health care.”

Let’s count the broken promises here alone: no, you can’t keep your plan (and this will definitely included employer-based plans, the vast majority of which are projected to be eliminated entirely by 2017); no, you can’t keep your doctor; no, you will not being paying the equivalent of a cable or cell phone bill.  Between premiums, higher co-pays, and outrageous deductibles, most Americans will never be able to pay enough of the out-of-pocket expenses to get their new 0Care policies to kick in–oddly, this is also one of the reasons that Obama and his traitorous horde claim that existing health insurance is “substandard”; and no, most Americans will not be saving $2,500 per year.

Amazingly, the Obot apologists have nothing to say about these bald-faced, strategic (i.e. political only), and willful lies.  Instead, they idiotically pretend that the only alternative is to go back to the previous, admittedly flawed, health insurance system.  Again, this defies human logic, but I suppose it’s right in line with what passes for leftist logic: it’s either our way or the old way.  False choices, of course, but that’s how they “think.”  The fact that their way is actually even worse than the old way is lost on them, of course.  The fact that there are unlimited solutions to the health insurance coverage problem is also lost on them.  Heck, it would have been far less expensive, far less disruptive, and far more effective to simply send checks to the uninsured to buy health insurance.  Obviously, this is a crap solution, but in light of what is happening now, it’s far preferable.

Changing Americans’ values

U. S. Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) made a rather astonishing admission, stating that the goal of 0Care is to change our country’s “values system.”  This hasn’t received near the coverage that it should, in part because there are just so many horrors to examine and so little time, but it’s something that we all need to note, question, and push back on.

In what ways does 0Care change our country’s values system?  Regressives are fond of intentionally misunderstanding the core American values of self-reliance, personal responsibility, and individual liberty.  They twist these beyond recognition, casting them as “selfish” and lacking in “compassion.”  Of course, neither is true, but that’s their argument.  How, then, do they force people into a collective?  Force Americans to (however grudgingly) tow the statist line?  Look no further than the 0Care Tax travesty.

Nicole Hopkins’ Wall Street Journal article about her mom being forced into Medicaid garnered a lot of attention last week.  As it should.  Any American who qualifies for Medicaid will be auto-enrolled in it . . . whether they like it or not.  There is no opt-out, there is no choice.  And once you are on Medicaid, you’re stuck, and this is particularly worrying for Americans 55 and older.  But all Americans should be horrified by this.  Not only will the government–one way or another, before or after your death–collect on all monies paid out by Medicaid, whether you use it or not, but this is anathema to American values.

While Obama’s horrendously destructive domestic policy is forcing more and more people onto welfare, food stamps, and other tax-payer funded entitlements (and there is no shame in that, as I’ve noted in the past), a great many Americans living at or just above the poverty level take great pride and derive self esteem and dignity from refusing government assistance.  Forcing people onto Medicaid who are willing to–who insist on being “allowed” to–pay their own way (and simultaneously auto-enrolling them on food stamps!) is not only a budget-breaking mistake but is incredibly destructive to the American spirit, to our foundational values system.

Other values attacked by 0Care include forcing pro-life Americans to pay for abortions and birth control in violation of their own religious beliefs, using Americans’ personal and private tax and health information as political weapons in elections, carrying a “marriage penalty,” and attempting to tie patient care to disclosures of one’s legal gun ownership.  These and other “hidden” aspects of 0Care are key reasons that Obama is not going to relinquish this tyrannical law without a fight.

Obama and our new banana republic

I’ve written repeatedly about Obama’s endless attempts to silence any and all dissent and his utter disdain for and dismissal of the United States’ Constitution, so I won’t revisit them here, but there are a few new developments in our shiny new banana republic that I do want to note:

Apparently, the Census was manipulated to reflect a lower unemployment rate right before last year’s election.  Republicans, back in 2009, actually warned this would happen.  It did.

Obama himself is behind the Senate’s filibuster rules change.  Bizarrely, again, his Obot apologists argue that more of his nominees have been filibustered than those of any other president.  Well, of course they have.  We’ve never had an actual, antiAmerican, Constitution-hating, dyed-in-the-wool radical in the White House before.

With Charles Rangel calling, yet again, for Obama to seize dictator-like powers, it’s amazing that any American on the left or right supports this administration at all.

It’s going to be a very long three years.

Establishment GOP As Clueless As Ever

I was watching this clip of Mitt Romney being interviewed on Hannity, and I sighed. A lot. I shook my head with disbelief and not a little sorrow.  Here it is, watch it, see how you respond:

 

Although I definitely believe that we’d be in much better shape right now as a country if Mitt Romney had won last November, I (almost) can’t believe how . . . seriously, truly, deeply stupid he is about the “mistakes” he claims to have made.  Hispanics.  Really?  That’s why he lost?

This is a deep and serious problem with establishment GOP: they honestly believe that their own big spending, big government solutions are way better than leftists’ big spending, big government solutions, and because they are so invested in this big spending, big government ideology, two major things happen (neither good for either the GOP or our republic):  one, they compete for Democrat voters on Democrat turf, and two, they do so at the expense of their own base . . . failing to care that the base is deserting them in record, wacko bird numbers. They seem to think that GOP numbers are tanking because of the left; that’s only half right–they’re also tanking because conservatives are fed up with them and have been for years.  What they don’t seem to understand is that they will never ever win by running as Democrats against actual Democrats.

Sure, if Mitt could have turned out Hispanics in the numbers (both real and fraudulent) that turned out for Obama, he’d have won.  He didn’t lose by all that much, after all, but the people who didn’t turn out, who didn’t vote for him weren’t only the Democrat and Obama’s base; they were prominently, in large numbers conservative voters (seriously, this is what Mitt worries he did so wrong: he didn’t win over enough Obama voters. Yet if the GOP had run an actual conservative, conservatives would have turned out in huge numbers as we did in 2010).  Instead of worrying that he, amazingly, turned out fewer conservatives than that national disgrace John McCain, Romney is worried that he didn’t turn out enough of Obama’s voters.  You can’t make this stuff up, you really can’t.

It’s insane.

Yet this is what the GOP elite are thinking, planning for, and worrying about.  How, they fret, will they ever convince Obama voters to vote for their big government instead of Obama’s big government?  Gee, they wonder, what can we do to show that we’ll hand out just as many phones and other freebies as Obama?  That they’ll grant amnesty without secure borders (ahem Rubio and Paul Ryan) just like Obama?  How can they convince Obama voters that their big government solutions to “national” health care, “national” education, and a myriad other issues they want to solve via the federal government and increased tyranny are better than the Democrats’ federal programs, regulations, and general tyranny?  If only they could solve that problem, they are certain, they’d win a presidential election.

Never mind that Americans are sick of, don’t want, and actively reject all that big spending, big government nonsense that does nothing for the American people (except enslave them and whittle away at that their God-given rights) and does everything for the political class and their cronies.  Who cares what Americans want?  Not the Dems.  Not Obama.  And no, not the GOP establishment who are trying to compete on regressive turf with regressive policies for regressive votes.  They think that’s a winning strategy, and they think that even as the American public declares that it wants less government spending and fewer federal programs.

Never you mind that it doesn’t work, that an election that Obama never should have won was not won by Obama but lost by these regressive GOP establishment types who really, truly, deeply believe that their key to success is to out-regressive the regressives, to win over regressive voters with their bigger, better, more policies, programs, regulations, laws, mandates, and dictates.  They just keep churning out unacceptable candidates that the conservative base of the GOP continuously rejects in hopes that they’ll finally hit on one who will appeal to not only indies but to a good portion of the Obama base.  That’s the plan.

And they think it’s a good one.

They see headlines like Ted Cruz now leads GOP presidential pack and The conservative shift in public opinion has happened in all 50 states, and they conclude, as Mitt Romney does in the above video, that . . . Hispanics!

You can’t fix stupid.  You can only vote it out of office, out of power, sweeping it out of the way.

Shiny, Happy Faces: What I Learned By Revisiting 2008

I read this now-bizarre and I’m sure embarrassing pre-2008 election article on Obama (of course I didn’t stick it in my full-to-bursting “Post” file and now can’t find it).  You know the sort of thing, though: exuberant, hopey-changey, full-on brain freeze, idealistic, certain that Obama was more than human, maybe even a god.

In other words: delusional.

It was truly sick-making to be pulled back in time to 2008 and read the fawning, deaf, dumb, and blind near-worship that gripped our nation.  I was completely tossed back there:  to the gleeful, shiny faces of Obots en masse, and I was dumbfounded (I so wish I could find that article again, but I can’t even remember where it was posted or what it was called, so can’t do a realistic search for it–“realistic” meaning it won’t take me freaking hours to find it).

I remember sitting across the table from a then-colleague and now former friend (thanks, Divider in Chief) as she waffled on about how fabulous it was that Obama was elected.  Gag.  I smiled, nodded, tried to pretend that I wasn’t heart-broken inside (not because I wanted McCain, who the hell would want that?, but because even McCain would have been better than what we got saddled with. Twice). After some careful questioning, I realized that she-like so many others back then-didn’t really know why she liked Obama, but she did.

Magically.

Our friendship dissolved a couple years later, when I could no longer pretend that I was indifferent.  It was weird, really, that incident:  she started attacking Sarah–not at all sure why, really, since it had been a couple years since Teh Won won, but she just kept going on and on about how stupid Sarah is (yes, even citing the SNL “I can see Russia from my house” line as if Sarah had actually said it /smh).  After a while, I just couldn’t take it anymore, and full-knowing the risk I was taking, came back with a few choice dumb-frak asshat drooling idiot remarks that Obama had made.  Oh, erm, that’s different, everyone (insert: “whom I like”) can make a mistake.  Hey, I just hate talking about politics . . . .

Uh huh.

I remember that it took all the tact I had (and I am not endowed with an abundance of that, let’s be honest here) to write a post after the ’08 election debacle saying that “maybe he can.”  It was the low-point in my blogging life, actually, and I wish now I’d never written it.  I tried to find it, but I couldn’t because I guess I didn’t migrate my posts from Multiply (where I was blogging in ’08) to either blogger or WordPress.  Anyway, it’s out there somewhere.  And if it’s not, I remember it.  And feel shame.

I knew better.  I wrote all the way back in 2006 that Obama was sketchy, empty, useless.  Oh sure, back then I wasn’t quite so attuned to the problems we are now facing (read: I was beyond clueless), but I heard him speak for an hour and say absolutely nothing.  That wasn’t just once, that was every time he spoke.  And I knew something was wrong, plus my inner cynic (who very much resembles my outer cynic) recoiled at all the unspecific hopeandchange.  I didn’t like it.

I didn’t like it at all.

I remember sitting at lunch with some leftist loon I worked with as he sung Obama’s praises (almost literally, I half-expected him to hoist his considerable bulk off the chair and start jiggling and singing), and I just sat there wondering what the hell was wrong with everyone.  Finally, when the Obot incantations stopped, I asked this person what Obama stood for, what he represented, what his plans were for America, what “yes we can” even meant in real terms.  The person, after giving a pretty impressive impersonation of a large-mouth bass, mumbled something about “hope” and “change” and how great was the “race speech,” anyway?!

You mean the “race speech” a white guy wrote and that Obama read off a teleprompter?

Eye roll.

These people weren’t alone; there was (nearly) a whole nation under the same spell, and they could easily connect and sing in near-unison the early version of the Mmmm Mmmm Mmmm song.  I was the one who was alone (or felt like it) because I didn’t buy the charade.  I heard what Obama said to Joe the Plumber, I knew about Bill Ayers being his bestest bud and the bad Reverend Wright being his preacher, and I listened hard to his speeches, then I read them.  Then I read them again.

Talk about no there there.

But the media was swooning all the way back to 2006, as was almost everyone I knew.  I have to admit that there were times I doubted myself.  Could all these people be right?  What the hell was wrong with me that I didn’t trust him, didn’t think he should be elected president?  OMG, was I a racist without even knowing it? Was that even possible?  I mean, don’t you have to hate people because of their race to be a racist?  I didn’t hate Obama (not back then, anyway, and even now, I don’t hate him for his race. Obviously.).  Frankly, I didn’t even think about his race (most conservatives don’t think about race, as you know).  So I determined that I wasn’t racist; I was just alone in doubting this person, alone in thinking he was too good to be true, alone in thinking that he was purposefully presenting an empty canvas upon which every voter could paint their own hopes and dreams.

Obama was the second coming, the “one we’ve been waiting for,” the messiah back in ’08.  He was articulate, handsome, presidential.  He was everything and anything to everyone and anyone all the time.  He was intelligent, intellectual.  He was tech savvy and the epitome of the rational man, no knee-jerk “dead or alive” comments from him.  He was going to change everything we hated and double-down on everything we loved (that this varied from person to person didn’t seem important).  He was a unifier:  post-racial, post-partisan, post-American.

Barack Obama:  better than sliced bread, better than sex.  The young, the old, the white, the black, the Hispanic, the Asian, the gay, the straight, the bi and transgendered, the Christian, the Jew, the male, the female, the rich, the poor, the middle-class, the center-right and center-left, the left, the right, the far left (okay, not the far right :P)  . . . nearly everybody loved Obama.  Except me.  I didn’t love him.  I didn’t know him, and I didn’t trust him (I trust no one who can speak for an hour and say absolutely nothing, let alone anyone who can do that and somehow inspire cheers and literal swoons from an adoring throng. Gag.).

Election night, 2008: across the country people cheer, dance in the streets, hold up lighters, hug one another (often with tears in their eyes), wave American flags (yes, even leftists!).  The entire nation seemed to have been swept up in the Obama fervor.

It was chilling.  Like witnessing a real-life episode of the Twilight Zone or wondering if everyone had been replaced with pod people.  All those happy, shiny faces, all that glee and joy, all that faith in unclear, nonspecific hopeychangey stuff.

Unsettling.

That was leading up to and into November 2008.  By spring 2009, the hopeychangey stuff wasn’t working out so well, and the shiny, happy faces sort of froze into a grimace.  A grimace that still held hope in its eye.  A hope that started fading in 2010 and was pretty much extinguished by 2012.  That’s the year Obama ran not as the messiah who could stop the oceans from rising and heal the planet while simultaneously eliminating poverty, inequity, and those horrible boils unicorns sometimes get, but as the exact opposite.

He ran in 2012 as the divider: everything is about race, class, gender, sexual orientation, red state, blue state; everything is about ensuring that each voting bloc stays not only separate but feeling the Obama “love” (which is very like the Obama “hate” except that with the former he’ll smile at you indulgently and condescendingly as he bankrupts you. If you’re a particularly good Obot, he won’t send the IRS after you.  Or the ATF, FBI, EPA, DOJ, etc.  Yay!?!).

And now, here we are in 2013, and some of us are still feeling the pain and disillusionment from the last election.  But here’s what I learned from my foray into the recent past: there is absolutely no comparison between today’s Obama and the 2008 Obama.  Not only has he shown his true tyrannical and treasonous colors but even his Obots have an inkling that all is not what it seemed with their messiah, their chosen one.

He’s inarticulate (let’s face it, he can barely stutter out a coherent sentence that he hasn’t practiced–probably for days–if he can’t read that practiced line off a teleprompter), he’s not tech savvy (remember the president who had over a million followers on Twitter tell a Chinese audience that he had no idea what Twitter was?), he has nothing new to say (what he does say is either “it’s Bush’s fault” or “I have no idea what the hell is going on in my own administration”), and he has nothing new to offer (the world has seen petty, paranoid dictator wannabe bullies who oppress, intimidate, imprison and otherwise silence opposition).

When Obama was first elected, the dissatisfaction with President Bush was palpable, even amongst die-hard republicans (I don’t consider myself a republican, btw, I’m a Constitutional conservative–the GOP, generally speaking, are not), and Democrats outnumbered Republicans by a somewhat shocking margin.  That changed quickly, and by December 2009, the disillusioned had jumped ship, and the percentage of Democrat and Republican voters evened out again.  Floating indies (who seem to change parties, at least in part, on a whim due to some perceived wrong or because it’s Thursday) tend to be more conservative, at least fiscally, so the numbers aren’t set in stone.  But what they do offer is a glimpse into Obama’s popularity.  Or lack thereof.

His star is falling and falling fast.  Whatever his plans were, he will never be able to fulfill them because there is no way in hell he’ll ever again reach the exalted high he enjoyed in ’08.  America knows him now and has his number; it will take a great deal more than fake Greek columns, phony presidential seals, and dramatic readings of other people’s scripts to get those faces shiny and happy once more.

DNC: Warren and Clinton and erm, 0

I was going to write something up yesterday about Elizabeth “I have high cheekbones like all the Indians do” Warren’s and Bill Clinton’s DNC speeches, but I figured I could only really stomach one DNC post.  And as President 0’s speech was last night, well, I just waited a day.

Up first, Elizabeth Fauxcohantas Warren

If you haven’t seen this video from Legal Insurrection, watch it to get a feel for this person who is running for Senate against Scott Brown in MA:

I honestly didn’t think that Scott Brown stood a chance in you-know-where of being reelected.  It was my position that he’d won under the most unique “perfect storm” of circumstances–it was a special election, so people were paying more attention, had  more resources to put into his election; that was when we believed that the “41st vote” mattered, that we could stop the 0CareTax by breaking the Dem supermajority (instead, as we all remember, too well and painfully, they passed it by “reconciliation,” yet again ignoring the will of the people).  That misconception, of course, resulted in massive–perhaps unprecedented–national support for Brown; and Martha Coakley was singularly horrible as a candidate–and that his win was a one-off that would not, could not be replicated in 2012.

As it turns out, I have to rethink the definition of “singularly”: Warren is equally horrible, and in many of the same ways as well as some shiny new ones.  She may well lose to Scott Brown.  Professor Jacobson has the scoop on her horribleness and her potential failed bid for what Brown dubbed “the people’s seat” (aka Ted Kennedy’s seat), so I’ll just get on to her DNC speech.  Yes, I managed to listen to it all, and I did take note of one thing that she said (and that Dems, including 0, say):

But for many years now, our middle class has been chipped, squeezed, and hammered. Talk to the construction worker I met from Malden, Massachusetts, who went nine months without finding work. Talk to the head of a manufacturing company in Franklin trying to protect jobs but worried about rising costs. Talk to the student in Worcester who worked hard to finish his college degree, and now he’s drowning in debt. Their fight is my fight, and it’s Barack Obama’s fight too. [source]

Here’s the thing–well, another thing–leftists just don’t understand.  Government should not be “fighting” for the middle class, blue collar workers, students . . . that’s not government’s job.  Their responsibility is to protect our freedoms and to ensure that we are a safe and sovereign nation. The government should not be “fighting” for any sort of justice but equal justice.

This idea that the government, or the Democrat Party, has a role in “fighting” for certain groups of Americans makes my skin crawl.  If they are fighting for certain groups, with whom are they in combat?  Yep, other “groups” (i.e. the evil “rich” slash 1%, big corporations, and apparently, Israel and Christianity–though “God” was reinstated, it was much to the party’s chagrin).  No thanks.  Government needs to protect individual rights (all Americans’, not just pet groups aka voting blocs), our inalienable rights–granted by our Creator, not government, in other words.  And it cannot do that if it’s busy deciding which special interests are worth fighting for and whom should be fought against.

I found her “accent” annoying and her manner cloying when it wasn’t “gratingly smug.”

Up second, Bill Clinton

Okay, I admit it, I didn’t hate his speech.  When it was all over, all I could think was “Thank God, he’s not running for president.”  The reason for this is not that he was telling the truth, he wasn’t.  Not that he has a great plan for the future, he doesn’t.  It was that he’s that darned good at the spin, the speech, the oozing of “I understand you” and “I not only fixed it before but can do so again.”  No.  I didn’t buy it, but there are millions of Americans who would have, who did.  Will that rub off on 0?  Doubtful.  Where Clinton seems sincere (even when he’s not), 0 just sounds whiny and needy.  Where Clinton sounds competent and in control of issues and facts, 0 just sounds out of his depth and/or like he’s reading from Cliff Notes.  Where Clinton sounds like he really “gets” the average American, 0 sounds sneering, arrogant, and condescending.

[aside: I don’t think that a president has to be middle class or “average”–indeed, I’d prefer a distinctly above average person as president, but it does seem to matter to others.  I guess that’s why Dems–and Republicans for that matter–keep trying to establish their “I’m just like you” cred.  I don’t want a president just like me, I want a president who is presidential and capable of the job.  I’m neither.  And I suspect that few people are.  Teh Won certainly is neither.]

Now Clinton, I thought, hammered a particular point that I found interesting.  Yes, yes, I know I was hoping he’d undermine 0, was listening for it, so take this part with a grain of salt.  Buuuutt . . . wasn’t it interesting how he hammered and hammered the part about 0 laying the foundation for the “new” American economy, the economy of the 21st century?  He comes back to that a few times, and at one point he even practically shouts that he believes in this 0-laid foundation for a remade American economy with all his heart (I’d insert the full text, but he, being Bill Clinton, ad-libbed a lot, and ultimately, I think, changed the emphasis a great deal from the prepared version.).

Speaking about a “modern, well-balanced” economy and a new “shared 21st version of the American Dream,” Clinton was enthusiastic.  Me?  Not so much.  Considering the audience and what we know of what 0 has done with regards to foundation-laying, I’d say that we are on the path to a complete collapse of our free market capitalist economy (Cloward-Piven, anyone?).  So what is the “new” and “modern” economy that 0 hopes to replace that with?  Oh, it’s one based on the word, “shared”: as in “shared opportunities, shared responsibilities, shared prosperity, a shared sense community.”

Hmph!

Which brings me to Clinton’s statement that “we believe we’re all in this together is a far better philosophy than you’re on your own.”  Two things are wrong with this, however.  One, “we’re all this together” is a great philosophy for Americans to have, it’s not a great philosophy for the American government to have (when the government acts on this philosophy, we call it Marxism or Communism); and Two, no conservative believes “you’re on your own” is a great philosophy for either Americans or for government.  The Constitution clearly lays out exactly what the role of government should be, and that’s what we support.  Americans, we the people, in our neighborhoods, communities, cities, towns, states, as a nation pull together; it’s who we are (actually are, not whom 0 insists we are or should be in his unicorn-pooping fantasies).

The whole “it takes a village” versus “you’re on your own” dichotomy is an absolute fallacy, it always was. Perhaps leftists believe it because they are not the type to do anything on their own or even in their own neighborhood or through charities?  Leftists think that paying taxes is and should be the extent of their “help” for their fellow Americans, that when something goes wrong, the government will fix it.  That’s not “we’re all in this together,” that’s I kicked in my “fair share,” now go handle it so I can get on with my life.  Which is really the selfish, detached, “you’re on own” philosophy?

And yes, I agree with Clinton that 0 is “burning for America on the inside.”  Just not in the way he (probably) meant it.

Up last, erm, 0

Full disclosure:  I couldn’t watch 0’s speech last night.  I’m just sick of him, sick of the sight of him, sick of the sound of him.  After how many millions of speeches in ’09 and into ’10, I just got burnt out.  I also find him annoying and horrible, so that doesn’t help me stomach his speeches.  I forced myself to read it today for this post.  Don’t say I never do anything for you.  heh

My reaction:

Leftists on Campaign Cash: It’s Evil. Or Marvelous. Um, Depends Who Has It.

Everywhere we turn, we hear that the 0 campaign is struggling to raise campaign cash because those evil Republicans are taking full advantage of the Citizens United ruling.  They’re going to buy the election, shriek fanatical anti-capitalist leftists.  They’re going to steal it from Teh Won! How can we let this happen? It’s wrong to raise so much campaign cash, it’s obscene, it’s unethical, it’s downright undemocratic.

Uh huh.

Flashback.  Remember when the 0 campaign was being lauded for their potential to run the first (“unprecedented” and “historic”) billion dollar campaign?  MSNBC does.  That’s why when you click on their post extolling the virtues of massive campaign coffers: “Obama to run moneyed campaign. He amassed a record $750 million in 2008 … he’s expected to hit $1 billion or more in 2012,” you receive the message: “Text: We’re sorry. The text content of this page is no longer available.”

I expect all of these slobbering awe-struck posts will soon be removed (good thing we can grab them first, huh?):

Reuters didn’t find it gauche or unseemly when they thought their buddy would amass a billion dollars to “buy the presidency”: “Analysis: Billion-dollar Obama to run moneyed campaign

President Barack Obama is no longer the outsider candidate who fueled his bid for the White House in 2008 with a flood of small donations from new and young voters inspired by his message of hope and change.

As a sitting president he has far greater authority and media access and his 2012 re-election campaign is expected to raise $1 billion, which is unprecedented in U.S. politics.

ABC was predictably drooling at the idea. “Obama set to announce reelection bid“:

Some believe that Obama, who has a true knack for raising election money, may cross the threshold and could become the first $1 billion presidential candidate.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

According to The Associated Press, Obama intends to stay out of the fray until Republicans settle on a candidate next spring. But exactly who that will be is the billion-dollar question.

Roll Call was on the story. “GOP Has New 2012 Target: Obama’s $1 Billion Campaign

But a fat bank account is rarely a bad thing in politics. And most Democrats laugh off the suggestion that hitting the billion-dollar mark could be a political liability. At the very least, Obama’s fundraising prowess could become a distraction as the campaign progresses.

Dems aren’t laughing off big campaign coffers any longer . . . not since 0 started lagging behind in fund raising, that is.  Indeed, now a “fat bank account” is a bad thing.  A very bad thing for Democrats. Now that it’s future president Mitt Romney hauling in the massive cash, they find huge campaign coffers unAmerican and wildly proclaim that (suddenly) large amounts of campaign cash “put our democracy at stake.”  After all, when it’s 0 outspending his opponent as he did in 2008, that’s awe-inspiring leg-tingling good, that’s “democracy” in action, but when it’s future president Mitt Romney, it’s suddenly a threat to our “democracy”?

Uh huh.

And they honestly expect to be taken seriously.  Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?