The Culture of Investment

I went on a thought journey to explore what it meant to be the person I am and noticed some things that tie in politically these days. You may have discovered the same things.

The first thing noticeable today is those who support Trump are given a dichotomy. On one hand you see yourself being targeted and villainized by a concerted effort of institutions, media, Deep State interests; while on the other we are actually winning. We are changing an old guard and its way of thinking. They do not like that, hence a resistance.

But as this back and forth continues, we are actually winning because we are having the battle at all. The battle itself is evidence of victory. A taboo and forbidden battle.

Well, media or pundits keep asking the same tired questions of Trump supporters, “at what point will you abandon Trump, when will you denounce him? Does this do it?”

The problem of course is that you can denounce something he did or said or how he reacted, while at the same time not denounce what he has actually done. Get it? That is clear to me. But what media or elites want is a total and absolute condemnation.

If something is critical enough to criticize, it still does not erase what he has done. It does not cancel due credit he deserves. In that respect, does it really matter that one does not like a statement or two or his tweeting habits — which are only communications?

Investments

What does that have to do with investments? Put it this way, if I was to write a full defense of why I supported Trump and think he is the right man in the right job, I would have to cover the last 15 -20 years to make a substantive case. That would be a monumental task. So short of that let me just say I am sufficiently invested, heavily, in Donald Trump. By no monetary means or connections but in a philosophical and political way.

I feel invested in that the way anyone invests in what they feel is important, such as education, a career, family, where they live, financial investments. All of those help to shape who we are. Trump also represents a part of who I am, not the total sum.

Not like I just bought something on a whim thinking “I can always take it back.”

We may differ on certain things but there are commonalities that surpass those. Listing all those wouldn’t even make the case. But since I do, in a way I can see and live vicariously through his presidency. There is a personal investment. And I believe that is what has been missing in the last 4 presidents – a personal connection.

People may have thought they had that with George W Bush for a short time but it wasn’t real and did not last. We saw the differences with his priorities to ours and a few hallmarks of those were in nominating Harriet Miers and in the amnesty immigration scheme. There were certain other red flares that he was not really one of you. At any rate, even at the beginning I was not personally invested the way I am with Trump.

That was what was missing. Barack Obama had support, yes, but were people personally invested in him the way people are in Trump? I’d say not. Though Democrats were invested in him. And it was just like most of what the left does — it was deception, lies and an illusion. There was a huge illusion constructed around Bill Clinton. And that illusion carried over to Hillary both times she ran. They were not real. Sure Democrats believed them but they were lies like everything else the Left does.

Here we have Trump, with all his flaws, and there is a realness that was never present in any of the others. Campaign promises were not just campaign promises. He did not have years in the government sewer to provide an air of legitimacy. In fact, it was his detachment from government that gave him credibility.

I am at the point where I am tallying my investments that I have made and ones I did not. Though this one, supporting Trump, crosses so many personal areas that it is a natural fit. It is almost uncanny how it relates to other areas. So the idea I would have some moment to say I was all wrong, or the whole thing was a wasted effort, is as close to impossible as me going to Mars. I don’t know how many other people feel that way. I’m sure some do. (probably more than anyone realizes or media cares to think)

It takes us back to those other presidents’ legacies. There was a steady prevailing vacuum. It may not have been intentional but there was a void and disconnect with the very people who elected them. Regardless what they said, their interests and priorities were not aligned with the peoples. They did not care about the same things. When George W Bush tried to ram through amnesty on illegal immigration, with all it involved, with the gangs of, despite the will of the people, it was a lighthouse moment.

When the people finally did rise up in Tea Parties, the reaction everywhere only confirmed this national insult that had gone on as long as I remember. Not only did the critics not care about American citizens or real people but they were actually lined up opposing the public. And there is no way you could compare that moment of revelation to what the Resistance is all about now. It is not the same thing. In truth, they are the anti-Resistance.

It’s a little like this analogy. Say you originally found a good investment that fit for you. It worked and made you profits. It did what it was supposed to do. Then came a time where it fluttered or stalled out, or maybe lost a few points. Would you condemn the whole thing and say you should not have have bought it in the first place? Would you say it was all a complete mistake? I doubt it. See you cannot deny that it worked and got you the effects you were looking for. Nor can you deny the profits. (unless you condemn them too)

It is the same way with other investments in life. Do you denounce the family because it is not everything you think it should be? Do you denounce you education because one day it does not seem to benefit you how you want? The same works in the faith areas of life. Do you throw out your faith because one day it was not benefiting you? That seems to be a pretty selfish and materialistic way to look at everything. I’m sure some people do apply similar formulas: today I don’t like that, yesterday I did. No, people usually accept there will be bumps and hurdles. You don’t throw out all the work, time and energy you gave it because you are not presently satisfied with something.

Regardless of what new and stunning things media or the establishment may throw out at us, it does not change what progress has been done. Just as nothing changes all the damage those critics have done. I won’t turn my back on that. And I won’t deny it.

Well, short of running through my 15 years of reasoning and experiences that brought me here, this is my attempt to explain it. I also do not throw away, dismiss or deny all that experience long before Trump came along. But they are now joined in a way I could not have predicted. It’s a personal investment. I can denounce the resistance, mostly because it is not real and only more deception. Imitation is flattery except when it is a mockery.

Right Ring | Bullright

Change… what’s in your wallet?

Who says you can’t change? If you are a discredited politician, or stained American icon, there is still hope for you. Now times have changed. Research is clear.

Trump is the new penicillin. Well, no matter what you are ailing from, no matter how bad your reputation is, Trump is the cure. Just attack Trump and you can get praise gushing from from everywhere almost instantly.

That’s right players, the Trump Card is the new exemption card. Using it whisks away any past behavior hanging over your head like a dark cloud. It is a cult-market. Look what it did for Alec Baldwin. He won an Emmy mocking Trump, as a “conduit” for Trump pain.

Right now, even traitor Bowe Bergdahl is using it. They are trying to use it on Harvey Weinstein — if anything can save his reputation. Media started using it, too, as soon as Harvey’s scandal broke. And Jane Fonda used her Trump Card a couple times.

First, in September she said “Kudos, Bravos & Love to those brave athletes speaking truth to power.” Really? A big shout out to American dissent.

Then Fonda commented on Weinstein saying she just “found out about Harvey about a year ago. I’m ashamed that I didn’t say anything right then.” Oops. She had to know, it was common knowledge. This is a woman who found her way into North Vietnam in war time. Just found out last year? But maybe there is help.

In the same interview, she whipped out the Trump Card saying:

CNN [Trump’s election] “counteracts a lot of the good that we’re doing, because a lot of men say, ‘Well, our president does it, and he got elected even after people discovered that he was an abuser, so I’m just going to go ahead and do what I want to do.’ “

Last week, Jane pulled out her Trump Card again to cover her American shame.
Now she tells the BBC:

(Question) “Are you proud of America today?”
The actress was very quick to reply with a hard “no.”

“But, I’m proud of the resistance. I’m proud of the people who are turning out in unprecedented numbers and continue over and over and over again to protest what Trump is doing. I’m very proud of them, that core.”

No, she isn’t proud of America but even that can get swilled up in that Trump Card. (or should we call it the anti-Trump card?) I can see the ad now: ‘If it works for Jane Fonda, imagine what it can do for you?’ She’s proud of resistance or dissent though.

So it doesn’t only work once, you can just keep right on using it with the same results.

Hillary has had mixed results using her card because there is so much to cover. Still, it’s been effective in mitigating her damage. But she needs the super-plutonium version.

Bob Corker threw down his Trump Card, despite election problems, and no one mentioned his inside trading scandals or the investigation. The media turned him into a saint.

Mitt Romney used his a few times with positive effects. The left even ignored its phobia of his wealth. All that melted away. Plus, having a RINO card backs him up in emergencies.

McConnell tried using his but it got temporarily rejected. So there’s one outlier.

Maxine Waters uses her Trump Card constantly. Any of her hypocrisy is ignored. She’s Auntie Maxine, most quotable for “Impeach 45.” Florida Rep Wilson is also having lots of luck playing her Trump Card constantly. She now says she’s a rock star.

Look at George Bush. He was the most despised man for 16 years. Do I have to remind you how the left and media hated him? We were coerced into defending that Republican sore. He gave an anti-Trump speech this week and voila. His card worked like a charm.

Now media and people like liberal’s historian, Douglas Brinkley, say Bush’s speech will live in infamy, as a call to arms against Trumpism. (All the isms Bush used he didn’t mention that one.) Brinkley called it a warning on nationalism. His popularity on the left sored. They are praising Bush for bravery and courage. He didn’t vote for Trump and his father endorsed Hillary. This proves the left is gullible enough, the potential is enormous.

McCain took some heat for not voting for the repeal and replace. But he was praised by liberals for being an obstructionist. Now he attacks Trump again, and again they praise him. Playing political games is despised and yet McCain is celebrated. He also has had a gold RINO Card just for everyday use. Media widely accepts the RINO card, too.

There are still tests underway on the Trump Card but, as you can see, already there are exciting results. No one knows yet how far it can go, or any application limits? But so far it has rivaled its cousin, the Race Card. It already seems just as versatile except without all the extra baggage.

And like any new invention, people are finding that it is hard to imagine life without it.

Sort of reminds me of Rod Blagojevich: “I’ve got this thing and it’s f****ing golden, and, uh, uh, I’m just not giving it up for f***in’ nothing.” Gee, I wonder if the Trump Card can do anything for him? Or maybe OJ can try it?

Right Ring | Bullright

Thursday Trifecta of Politics

Politics hit the trifecta Thursday. The left thought they were in paradise. But the joke or lesson is really on them — with any analytical thought.

First the details: Chief of Staff General Kelly was compelled to come out to counter the “empty barrel” attack from Congresswoman Wilson(Fla); President Bush’s speech in NYC; and Obama found his angry voice, again, campaigning for progressives in NJ and VA.

That on the heels of McCain delivering his salty attack on Trump, in receiving the Liberty Medal honor. (McCain had to use his honorable moment to attack others)

Kelly’s remarks from the White House were weighted and directed perfectly. Just the fact that he would have to come out to address this issue that media blew into a firestorm is a sign of our times. He complained of the lack of sacred tradition and civility.

Well, home run. But it won’t stop the left in a spiral dive into the gutter. Obama would never be treated this way, under any circumstances. Nor will it stop RINOS.

So Kelley’s remarks were very sincere compared to her diatribe.
But he alluded to the moral decay.

Wilson had even phoned in to “The View” to scream her hatred for Trump, calling the Niger incident Trump’s Benghazi. If she didn’t politicize it before by listening in on a White House call, she went all out on a live TV rant — leaving Megyn McCain almost speechless. She said she told the widow to give her the phone so she could “curse him out.”

One person left the audience with the sincerity of moral high ground. General Kelly.

Bush speech

The health of the democratic spirit itself is at issue. And the renewal of that spirit is the urgent task at hand.

And we know that when we lose sight of our ideals, it is not democracy that has failed. It is the failure of those charged with preserving and protecting democracy.

Freedom is not merely a political menu option, or a foreign policy fad; it should be the defining commitment of our country, and the hope of the world.

They are further complicated by a trend in western countries away from global engagement and democratic confidence. Parts of Europe have developed an identity crisis. We have seen insolvency, economic stagnation, youth unemployment, anger about immigration, resurgent ethno-nationalism, and deep questions about the meaning and durability of the European Union.

America is not immune from these trends. In recent decades, public confidence in our institutions has declined. Our governing class has often been paralyzed in the face of obvious and pressing needs. The American dream of upward mobility seems out of reach for some who feel left behind in a changing economy. Discontent deepened and sharpened partisan conflicts. Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.

We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions – forgetting the image of God we should see in each other.

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America.

We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places,….

Clearly directed at Trump, and not just him but the people who elected him. I love how these guys all do drive-bys on the electorate. — especially when they don’t agree with the results of the election.

Demonizing isolation, for a guy who ran against nation building. And yes, loudly he bashes the nationalism, as if it is corrupted somehow. But it was this very nationalism that helped get him elected, not once but twice. (even though many of us questioned his record) Oh nationalism was great when it voted for him. But it’s bad when we saw what direction he was taking us — that not so subtle handoff to globalism, the New World order.

Of course, again a huge swipe at conspiracies. Say nothing about the current conspiracy theories against Trump. No, we know the ‘conspiracies’ he meant were on the right.

Finally, oop there it is: “Our governing class”. Where the hell does that come from? The global elitism people are sickened of, which causes his bitterness at our nationalism.

Obama speech

“What we can’t have is the same old politics of division that we have seen so many times before that dates back centuries,” the former president said.

He implied that some people in power are embracing outdated mindsets when crafting policy.

“Some of the politics we see now, we thought we put that to bed,” Obama said. “That’s folks looking 50 years back. It’s the 21st century, not the 19th century.”

The master of illusion and straw men comes out to remind us everything wrong with him and the past 8 years. He’s like a sideshow magician at the fair doing cheap card tricks to lure your attention, just to be disappointed.

That’s supposed to be a fastball attack on Trump but Obama perfected the art of division. That’s what he ran on. I still remember the drop down lists for all his groupie identities. Then there was the class warfare, anti-Christian diatribes, anti-American crap, attacks on the rich, pitting one group against the other. It’s his specialty. Now he rails against the division he built.Ask Dems, they’ll tell you.

Right Ring | Bullright

Not here, not there, not anywhere, nope

Here’s a little diddy I was thinking about.

Bush_announces_Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_2003Remember the old roasting routine Bush did where he was poking fun by looking everywhere for WMD?

Well, now funny as that was, let’s give Bush some credit now. Applause, well at least he was looking for it. We have to hand it to him for that.

Now we have Obama who would not see Islamic terrorism if it was right in front of his Kenyan face. And whatever ISIS might be, it sure is not Islamic. Nope.

How come the libs aren’t laughing at Obama?

Sheila Jackson fails truth test

On Wednesday, Congress held a lying contest and Sheila Jackson Lee took first place. No runner-up was mentioned.

Sheila Jackson Lee cries fowl over resolution to sue Obama calling it a veiled impeachment, claiming they never sought impeachment of Bush. But yes, she co-sponsored a bill to impeach Bush in 2008.

Jackson Lee says ‘we did not seek an impeachment of President Bush’ but she co-sponsored ’08 bill

Politifact

As Congress’ August recess loomed, partisan skirmishing reached a crescendo, with the U.S. House approving, on a near-party-line vote, a lawsuit against President Barack Obama on the grounds that he had overstepped his constitutional authority.

Democrats, noting past statements by some Republicans in Congress, raised the specter of the president being impeached, though Republican House leaders insisted that impeachment wasn’t an option.

During the floor debate over authorizing the lawsuit against Obama, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, suggested that Democrats had the moral high ground.

Even though some Democrats had thought that President George W. Bush had abused his authority when he initiated the Iraq War, the House, while under Democratic control in 2007 and 2008, did not impeach him.

The current resolution to authorize a lawsuit, Jackson Lee said in a floor speech on July 30, 2014, “smacks against the Constitution, which says there are three equal branches of government. Therefore, the executive has the right to perform his duties. I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is, in fact, a veiled attempt for impeachment, and it undermines the law that allows the president to do his job. It is a historical fact that President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.”

A reader asked us to check whether it’s accurate for Jackson Lee to say, “We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush.” So we took a closer look.

Jackson Lee, it turns out, is an imperfect vehicle for making this charge. Here’s the problem: A dozen House Democrats in 2008 did introduce a resolution seeking the impeachment of Bush. And Jackson Lee was one of the measure’s 11 co-sponsors.

The measure in question was H. Res. 1258, introduced by then-Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, on June 10, 2008. The resolution — a 167-page laundry list of criticisms — accused Bush of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” citing numerous “abuses of power” related to his prosecution of the war in Iraq and the fight against global terrorism, among other topics.

If Jackson Lee means to define “we” as the Democratic caucus as a whole, she has a point. The resolution never gained wide support among the Democrats, even though they controlled Congress at the time. The bill died quietly in committee.

Pelosi explained her thinking about the impeachment resolution in a July 2008 interview on ABC’s The View. “I thought that impeachment would be divisive for the country,” she said. “We have to create jobs, expand healthcare, protect the American people and educate our children. And you can’t do that if you’re trying to impeach the President at the same time, unless you have the goods that this president committed crimes.”

Even so, it seems odd to hear Jackson Lee saying “we did not seek” impeachment when she, in fact, was a co-sponsor of a measure that sought precisely that.

When we reached out to Jackson Lee’s office, communications director Michael J. McQuerry said, “the Congresswoman was stating that the Democrats did not try to impeach President Bush over executive orders.”

However, we looked through Jackson Lee’s floor speech and saw no references to executive orders. For that matter, the specific target of the House GOP’s lawsuit — administrative changes to delay the effective date of the Affordable Care Act’s employer mandate — did not take the form of an executive order, either, although Republicans have been critical of some of Obama’s executive orders more generally.

Further undercutting Jackson Lee’s explanation, the 2008 impeachment resolution she co-sponsored did address executive orders twice:

• It quoted then-Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., saying the Bush administration’s “shroud of secrecy extends to agency rules and executive pronouncements, such as executive orders, that carry the force of law. Through the diligent efforts of my colleague, Sen. (Sheldon) Whitehouse (D-R.I), we have learned that (the Office of Legal Counsel) has taken the position that a president can ‘waive’ or ‘modify’ a published executive order without any notice to the public or Congress — simply by not following it.'”

• Citing a 2007 article from the Washington Post, the resolution said that Mike McConnell, Bush’s director of national intelligence, in a letter to the late Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, “acknowledged that Bush’s executive order in 2001 authorized a series of secret surveillance activities and included undisclosed activities beyond the warrantless surveillance of emails and phone calls that Bush confirmed in December 2005.”

Our ruling

Jackson Lee said, “We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush.” She has a point that neither the House nor a majority of the Democratic caucus sought Bush’s impeachment. However, a dozen Democratic lawmakers did — including Jackson Lee herself. It seems hypocritical of the congresswoman to seize the moral high ground — essentially saying that her party gallantly went against self-interest by declining to seek Bush’s impeachment — when in fact she personally had sought precisely that outcome. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly False.

 
Does she ever stop arguing with reality? And that was in 2008, his last year in offiice. In fact they had a whole series of hearings, which she referred to as “abuse of power hearings”.  And she claimed that the prosecutorial record was even established, to be used to prosecute said “defendant” in impeachment. She was also troubled by the use of “signing statements”.

She said in a hearing on the subject in 2008: (video)

“This is not a personal question. This is a question of protecting the institution of the Constitution.”

She claimed “I do happen to think there is a very firm basis for suggesting  “high crimes and misdemeanors”  via a series of  “abuse of power hearings”.

“Why in the world would we be afraid of allowing this prosecutorial approach to go forward?”

Now she says:

“I ask my colleagues to oppose this resolution for it is in fact a veiled attempt at impeachment and it undermines the law that allows a president to do his job. A historical fact: President Bush pushed this nation into a war that had little to do with apprehending terrorists. We did not seek an impeachment of President Bush, because as an executive, he had his authority. President Obama has the authority.”

The operative word she used was “seek”. And yes she did, as did a bunch of her Demodoos.

She was all in and one of the chief proponents for impeaching Bush. Now she can act as if none of that ever happened.  But her great complaint now is about a lawsuit, not impeachment, moving forward in what she fears a veiled impeachment. She was neck deep in an actual process on real impeachment — not some lawsuit over authority in a court.  And it was July of 2008 at the end of his term. Gung ho she was.

Sodium Pentathol will be administered before Sheila’s next speech.

Axelrod: look at the Republicans, not Obama

Trot out the political guru, Axelrod, and the diversion campaign. Obama has more problems on his plate than a Chinese buffet but somehow “it’s the Republicans, stupid”. Thus sayeth Axelrod. That’s the condensed message. He told Chris Mathews:

David Axelrodent
Misinformation Department

I think a lot of this emanates from the nature of the Republican base, and a lot of these guys are throwing red meat to the base. … You mentioned Speaker Boehner, the real question is the Republican leadership going to tolerate that? Boehner has yet to really stand up to these folks, and this is something that really deserves to be repudiated and you’d hope he would. One thing I would say though, Chris, delegitimization of presidents is something that we’ve seen now. It happened under the Clinton administration. We all remember how vituperative those times were and there were people on the left who aimed some of that at George W. Bush. Now, admittedly, it’s spun out of control now, because these folks are in control of the Republican party. So it’s at a fevered pitch now.

Of course, what else can he say. Its a broken record. Now reincarnate the Clinton years to show how bad they were, after running on Bill Clinton’s legacy and record. The bipartisan, unifier in chief resorts to straight partisan politics and attacks. Well, it is all they know.

His statement leaves lots of room for anyone who hasn’t yet had an Obama lobotomy to remember the truth. The truth about Bill Clinton and George Bush for starters. “Some of that at Bush”? And now “it’s spun out of control” because the Chicago thugster-in-chief  is having to face some inconvenient truths, chased with a miserable record. Can’t have that. So attack Republicans rather than deal with the truth and his record of failure. Now he runs around the country to rally his same old, low-info voter base.

But take a closer look at Axelrod’s words: (italics)

I think a lot of this emanates from the nature of the Republican base, and a lot of these guys are throwing red meat to the base.

That “nature of the Republican base”–whatever that is — must be super busy, in its lack of real power; but no way could it cause all these problems. Then, supposedly it uses them as fodder against Obama? – crazy. The “red meat” is just the scandals and problems your boss created all over the place. Now he wants to blame his opponents for both. If you want to blame them for something…(read on)

You mentioned Speaker Boehner, the real question is [is]the Republican leadership going to tolerate that?

That’s right, except is he going to tolerate what the out of control liar in chief is doing? Just how much and how long will the GOP leadership tolerate that?

Boehner has yet to really stand up to these folks, and this is something that really deserves to be repudiated and you’d hope he would. – that needs repudiated.

No, wrong again. The problem is not Boehner standing up to these folks. If anything when will he listen to them? You have it backwards. It’s his job to represent the people, and not for the people to represent them.

But when is he going to stand up to this dictator hell bent on ruining the country and the Constitutional process, just for his twisted ideology? That’s what the people want to know — not “is Boehner going tell people to shut up?” when the problems emanate from the White House and all around it. And when are we going to hold Boehner accountable for the failure to stand up, and not doing more to prevent it? That’s what people want to know.

One thing I would say though, Chris, delegitimization of presidents is something that we’ve seen now.

Did you happen to notice George -“not our president”-Bush in the last decade anyplace, or how he was treated? Delegitimized from election day on.

Oh now you have to reach back to Clinton to make your appeal. Clinton at least did work with Congress. But Obama’s reelection was all about the 2nd coming of Clinton. It was about how he would work with others. It was about following Clinton’s lead, wasn’t it? He even enlisting Clinton to deliver the closing arguments because the thugster couldn’t.

It happened under the Clinton administration. We all remember how vituperative those times were and there were people on the left who aimed some of that at George W. Bush.

Oh it did, poor Clinton. Everyone but you remembers, even the left. I think the verbal abuse and attacks leaving ugly scars was mostly on Bush.

Now, admittedly, it’s spun out of control now, because these folks are in control of the Republican party. So it’s at a fevered pitch now.

Still do not remember the Bush years or history, do you?. Now “admittedly it’s spun out of control”? A super-sized admission! How big of you. Now it’s at a “fevered pitch”, really?

Where were you the eight years preceding Obama? Right, in Chicago planning. Remember the “insurgent campaign” you ran. Heck, Dubya was Obama’s entire target of it. Obama decided to run against the guy that wasn’t running. Are you really talking “fever pitch” now?

He also told  MSNBC earlier that Syria images were compelling and hard to ignore.

“There’s nothing more impactful than film, pictures, images, and those images are searing. Everyone has seen them,” David Axelrod, former senior adviser to Obama and MSNBC contributor, said on Morning Joe. “Plainly, there needs to be action. The question is, what action?”

Obama was elected partly because of his skepticism about the war in Iraq and his belief of not becoming involved with issues of unknown cost, consequences, and duration, said Axelrod, who added the president needs to consider all options before taking action.

“I expect that they will take action, whether it’s the no-fly zone…or surgical strikes, we’ll see,” Axelrod said.

Partly? Oh, stop it David, he was elected on that premise. It was his whole campaign. It is where he differentiated himself from Hillary. He was the anti-Bush, anti-war, anti-action candidate. As irony and reality would have it, here he is combating weapons of mass destruction in Syria.That while we are busy dealing with this WMD in the White House, along with the media’s complacency about it.

Now I am waiting to hear how Republicans are responsible for this, or maybe Bush. I think Axelrodent is the proper name for him.

photo

Follow the yellow brick road


This is just some thoughts in progress. I decided to jot down a few notes. As the campaign comes into full swing, it is tough to keep track of all the shaking, rattling and rolling of just the politics.

I’ll be darned; it is the first election in ten years that is not about the war in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. See, one more thing the Dems prove they can spin on a dime on. Its albeit irrelevant for them. And Obama’s unConstitutional Libya action, where he acted unilaterally without Congressional approval? Well, that’s a non-starter now, to Dems anyway. They couldn’t care less about that. To his weekly private meetings on assassinations, a resounding “we don’t care” from the crickets in Democrat Party. Oops, to add a slice of drama to their careless position, they celebrate it and hail him a hero like some ‘new wave’ foreign policy guru. Even though this guy has anything but a great foreign policy resume’. Nothing could prevent their attacks on George Bush though.

And then the leaks. Rather than condemn and criticize the leaks, Obama sighed and changed the subject. Especially as they attempted to bolster his credentials. (amazing how they could do that) Dems followed suit. National security was not a problem. Only a few Dems stepped up to criticize the leaks, while trying to deny the WH involvement. Obama issued a blanket rejection that the leaks didn’t come from “his White House.” In fact, he declared it “offensive” to even raise questions that they came from the WH. And the press and Dems once again said he addressed the matter and that was that. It was supposed to be over just because he said so and the Dems wanted it that way.

Per script they said the American people didn’t care about that stuff, it was all just politics.

And there was the response to Solyndra and losing 500 million dollars of taxpayer money in a whopping failure. Oh, right, what response? Something about Bush, yea that was it.

Then there is the response to Fast and Furious. Obama eventually stepped in to declare Executive Privilege on everything pertaining to Congressional investigation of Holder’s DOJ on it. From the crowd of Dems and even press, a yawn as they hit the snooze button. They called it a manufactured scandal. Only when the Congress acted to hold Holder in contempt did they consider it newsworthy.

Finally, Democrats’ heated response was to stage a walkout of Congress, in defense of Holder, and heap a healthy round of criticism on it. But a walkout? Then came cries of racism. Holder was the victim. However, Congress was the problem, one of politics, not the facts and scandal of Fast and Furious, according to Dems. One has to remember all these consistent inconsistencies, if only to recall all the places the Dems have been.

They still talk about Valerie Plame and Scooter Libby, or anyhing pertaining to so-called Bush scandals.That deserves all the criticism they can muster.