Army of Dog

Last night’s Democratic debate has given most of the left a world-class case of the vapors. Evidently, when Democrats get treated like Republicans by the media it’s time to throw the outrage machine into high gear. The debate itself has been covered from both sides, and the general consensus from the legions of Obamaniacs was “hey, no fair!”

I can understand their frustrations, mainly because candidates I support have been treated like that by the media for as long as I’ve been politically aware. The fans of Senator Hopey should, however take heart. Their fearless leader has taken this opportunity to plead for more of their lunch money. I know this because I am on the official Obamessiah for America email list and I receive these kinds of critical messages on a daily basis. Yeah, I’m cool like that. I comb through this crap so you don’t have to.

Today’s missive, complete with “Important” tag, is cleverly titled “Gotcha” like every other article, blog post, and email message written by Obama supporters and party activists describing last night’s debate. It’s written by David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager, and it starts out like this:

Friend –

Did you see the debate last night?

If you did, you saw more gotcha politics and distractions than questions about the pressing issues affecting our country.

In fact, it took more than 45 minutes before Barack was asked about the economy, health care, or foreign policy.

The horror! Don’t these media bastards know that there job is to throw out softball questions to the Obamessiah so that he can talk about how he’s going to totally bring hope and change to America and rescue us from the clutches of Bushitler. God!

Don’t think for a moment that the media is the only one to blame however, because that Clinton bitch just looked a little too comfortable with the whole thing.

Regrettably, Senator Clinton seemed all too comfortable with that type of debate. She’s running a 100% negative campaign in Pennsylvania, taking every opportunity to make personal and discredited attacks against Senator Obama.

You can send a message that politics doesn’t have to be played this way.

And by “message” we mean money, send us money. We really don’t give a shit what your message is, just write the check.

Make your first donation today, and someone who’s already given will match whatever amount you decide to give. You can double your impact, and you’ll even get to see the name and town of the fellow supporter matching your first online gift.

Will you make a $25 donation now?

https://donate.barackobama.com/match

Hey, if you send us money, we’ll let you see the name and town of someone who is matching your gift. That way you can scribble their name all over the front of your Trapper Keeper and write poems about how you’re going to marry them and live forever on a cloud made of your Obama love.

Senator Clinton’s false, negative attacks are exactly the kind of say-anything, do-anything politics that the American people are tired of.

That’s why polls show that the majority of Americans think she’s running the most negative campaign, and 58% of voters do not find her honest or trustworthy.

Barack Obama wants to end the politics of division and distraction in Washington so we can bring about real change for ordinary Americans.

It takes a special kind of talent to call someone a liar while criticizing them for being negative and get away with it. David Plouffe does not have that talent.

Every four years there is a candidate that constantly throws out phrases like “change the tone” or “politics as usual.” They try desperately to convince the naive among us that they will be different and that they’ll run a completely positive campaign. It’s bullshit, we know it’s bullshit, and the more you try to pass it off as anything other than bullshit, the more it appears that you think we’re stupid. Seriously, shut the fuck up about your opponent “going negative.” The world is a tough place and if you’re going to whine when your political opponent says something bad about you, I reserve the right to think you’re a complete candy ass.

They are also trying to turn the “elitist” charge around with this cute little graphic:

No, you’re right, “elitist” is not the word for that phenomenon. The word is “gullible.”

Yesterday there was a story going around about Barack Obama making condescending remarks about the typical white people in rural Pennsylvania. Today the AP is running a story about the campaign’s response to that particularly huge fuck up.

MUNCIE, Ind. (AP) - Democrat Barack Obama on Saturday conceded that comments he made about bitter working class voters who “cling to guns or religion” were ill chosen, as he tried to stem a burst of complaints that he is condescending.

“I didn’t say it as well as I should have,” he said.

It was just a misstatement you see, he was trying to explain the frustration of rural Pennsylvanians to his fellow sophisticates and he failed to couch his terms in sufficiently populist verbiage. All of these silly wingnuts trying to make a big deal out of this are just failing to understand the nuance and layered thought processes of the Obamessiah.

Let’s have a little thought experiment, shall we? Say, for example, that John McCain was speaking to a group of rich, white businessmen in a private mansion right here in Dallas, Texas. As he was giving his remarks to the assembled party he began to address the struggles that the Republican Party will have in trying to woo the black vote, and he said the following:

You go into some of these urban centers in New York or D.C., and like a lot of major cities on the East Coast, the poverty has been endemic now for 40 years and nothing’s really changed for them. And they fell through the Carter Administration, the Reagan Administration, the Clinton administration, and both of the Bush administrations, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to gangs or basketball or hip-hop, class envy aimed at white people or anti-Republican sentiment or anti-American sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I’m going to bet my entire net worth that McCain, or any other Republican for that matter, would not get the benefit of the doubt from the left. He would be decried as a rich, white racist who believes that black people are too stupid to do what’s in their own best interest, and we should all be understanding because their desperate situation and their inferior intellect make them unable to see the wisdom of voting Republican.

Obama is an elitist leftist with a strong background in bitter class warfare indoctrination. If you look at the history of those who have been closest to him in both his political and personal life, it’s a virtual Who’s Who of rabid Marxist ideologues. The “beyond politics” bullshit is just that, a bullshit facade. Every piece of available evidence suggests that this guy is Markos Moulitsas Zuniga with better packaging.

I graduated from Baylor University in the heart of the great state of Texas some years ago. They will not be getting any donations anytime soon after inviting Juan Hernandez to speak. If you don’t know who that is, you may know him by his other name, The Number One Reason Why Brett Will Be Drunk While Voting. Michelle has a few excellent questions for Senor Asshole.

Ask him about this comment: ““We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people.”

Ask him about his lobbying for illegal alien driver’s licenses and Mexico first. Ask him about his defense of Mexican bus operators carrying illegal aliens to the USA, and promoted extending banking privileges to illegal aliens.

Ask him about this comment: “I want ‘em all to think Mexico first.”

Ask about his work for the Soros-funded Reform Institute.

I have another question, does McCain think that in the age of the internet this guy’s history won’t be laid open for public consumption? If I were running for President, even as someone who was pissed off at conservatives, you couldn’t get me to knowingly share the same zip code with this guy much less have him anywhere near my campaign. Then again, if I ran for President, my affair with Gennifer Flowers would probably do me in anyway.

Obama just finished his questioning and the only thought I can manage is WTF? I assume that he was attempting to set up an argument that all we really need to do in Iraq is withdraw everything but the minimum amount of personnel required to maintain the status quo. When Petraeus pointed out that this was not a realistic scenario, he got scolded like a child by both Obama and Joe Biden.

Obama then began speechifying about the fact that the bar for success was too high and what we really need to do is change the definition of victory so that we can declare it and get out. Never mind the fact that his characterization of the goals being set by the administration and MNF-Iraq is absurdly exaggerated, the notion that the specific accomplishments of our Iraq strategy aren’t as important as our ability to declare honorable withdrawal.

The only thing that made listening to this buffoon worthwhile was the look on Crocker’s face when he asked his last question. He had this smile that said “How do I answer this question without calling you an idiot?”

Senator George Voinovich (Pussy - OH) is whining like a four-year-old at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing featuring General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. He’s wailing on about how not surrendering in Iraq is going to bankrupt us. I haven’t heard him whining about the future entitlement shortfalls that will bankrupt us, but that’s another post. He seems to be rambling about the idea that we should get together with the Egyptians, the Saudis, and the Jordanians and warn them that we’re pulling out and they have to start helping the fledgling Iraqi government stabilize itself.

The problem with his theory is that the civilian and military infrastructure that need to be developed in Iraq to stabilize the government are not fully in place. At least that seems to be Petraeus’ position. I’m not a big fan of the Saudi, Jordanian, or Egyptian history of project management, at least not in any modern context. But hey, what’s a little governmental collapse, genocide, and massive regional instability if it helps anti-war politicians play to their base.

Oh God, the Obamessiah is beginning his questioning. That deserves its own post.

Martha Raddatz of ABC News conducted a thoroughly scientific poll of American military personnel in Iraq and found that almost all of them support Obama.

PFC Jeremy Slate said he supported Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., because of his stated intention to pull out of Iraq right away.

“That would be nice,” Slate said, “I’d like to be home, yea.”

SFC Patricia Keller also expressed support for Obama, citing his representation for change.

I know what you’re saying to yourself, “Brett, just because she found two soldiers who supported Obama doesn’t mean that the troops as a whole support him!” Well, obviously you didn’t read the article, because if you had, you’d know that she quotes six soldiers who expressed a specific preference for a candidate and five of the six support Obama. You’re such haters, why can’t you just stop being racist and admit that 83% of the soldiers deployed in Iraq support Obama! And by the way, the other 17% support Hillary. None of them support McCain, they like totally hate that guy.

I’ve decided that I need to start getting comfortable with the idea that I’ll be forced to walk into a booth in November and vote for John McCain. As part of that process I’ve been perusing the official campaign website and reading all about the Senator’s many accomplishments and policy positions. I’ll go through some of those in more detail at a later date when I’ve had a lot to drink. For now, I want to address the official campaign bumper stickers.

They’re simple, elegant, and understated, but I don’t think they tell us enough about the positive aspects of Senator McCain’s accomplishments. So I decided to offer the campaign my coveted design and marketing skills free of charge and come up with a few ideas that might better define the candidate for anyone who gets their political information from the back of a car during rush hour. So here are my contributions:

(more…)

Confederate Yankee links to a blog post by Time political columnist Joe Klein advocating the idea that those who believe in the best effects of benevolent government are more patriotic than those who believe government must be held in check by the vigilant constraint of a skeptical citizenry. And he articulates his position with the usual leftist grace.

Pete Wehner, former chief White House propagandist for the Iraq war, has taken me to task for claiming that liberalism is more optimistic and therefore inherently more patriotic than conservatism. That takes some nerve. He would compare my statement to the constant drumbeat of right-wingnutters questioning the patriotism of those who do not support the Bush Administration’s foreign policy foolishness. But I didn’t do that at all. I didn’t question the patriotism of conservatives: I simply argued that it is more patriotic to be optimistic about the chance that our collective will–that is, the best work of government–will succeed, rather than that it will fail or impinge on freedom.

The best measure I’ve found for the confidence of leftist activists and advocates is the appearance of the pre-Reagan notion of “good government.” Democrats have always believed in this concept of course, even in the heyday of the Reagan Revolution, but the more astute among them realized that their core values were at odds with the majority opinion of the electorate. To have any chance of electoral success Democrats, Bill Clinton notably, were forced to abandon the idea that government interference was a positive force in favor of the idea that such interference was merely necessary in the issues that most profoundly affected the lives of Americans. Rather than government being the progenitor of beneficial effects, government became a bulwark against the worst motives of individuals who wielded “too much” power or influence. It was never a heartfelt change in world view, so far as I could tell, but it was necessary because Reagan fundamentally changed the way that government was viewed by the public.

To a certain degree, that is what I believe Obama is trying to do with this election. Most Democrat activists and strategists seem to be salivating at the opportunity to hold an election in the middle of a war they see as unpopular, an economy that may head into recession, and a general feeling of discontent with the current Republican leadership. The kind of rhetoric used by Obama and echoed by Joe Klein is an indicator that leftists feel that not only do they have a chance to win an electoral battle, but they may be able to fundamentally change the conversation about the role of government in the improvement of the human condition. If they’re right, and I don’t think they are, we may well see a decade or more of massive expansion of social entitlements and a tightening noose of regulation on major industries, all in the name of “the best work of government.”

The leadership of the Democratic Party has already begun to tip their hand on this issue with their rhetoric about the “obscene profits” in the oil industry. You can be certain that if they gain power, oil companies will see massive new regulation and the rest of the energy sector will be in the crosshairs soon afterward. Having removed all incentive to expand exploration, drilling, and refining capacity on the part of the major energy companies, we could well see a future energy crisis that makes $4-per-gallon gasoline look like Disneyland.

The effect, however obvious it may seem, of government intrusion on a massive scale is, of course, not nearly as important as the intent. After all, that’s the point of the soaring rhetoric about “hope,” “change,” and “a new course.” Allow government to intrude with the best intentions and hope that it doesn’t make things worse. If it does, just hand over more control and hope that the benevolent government gets it right the second time, or the third, or the fiftieth. In fact the rest of Klein’s blog post expresses that very idea.

In others words, it is more patriotic to be in favor of civil rights legislation than to oppose it…to be in favor of social security and medicare than to oppose them…and to hope that the better angels of our legislators–acting in concert, in compromise–will produce a universal health insurance system and an alternative energy plan that we can all be proud of. Conservative skepticism has its place; it can be a valuable corrective when government goes flabby and corrupt or engages in wild neo-colonialist fantasies abroad. Any new legislation–or any new war–needs to be carefully vetted by those who would question its assumptions or who can put it in a larger context. Those who believe that government can act more ably than free individuals and markets in all–or even in most–circumstances are not patriots, but fools, and the same is true of those who only believe in the supremacy of the market.

But, historically, those who believed in the perfectability of our nation (Add: more precisely, our ability to improve, become more just, adapt to changing circumstances) have been right far more often than they’ve been wrong. Those who have stood in the path of progress have been wrong far more often than they’ve been right. And those who spent the past seven years as propagandists for the one of the worst, and needlessly blood-soaked, presidencies in American history, have such a fabulous record of self-righteous wrong-headedness that they needn’t be taken seriously at all.

Try for a moment to ignore the pejoratives like “neo-colonialist” or “propagandists” and focus on the point he’s trying to make. Those who believe that government is comprised of luminaries who will lift us from the miry pit through their benevolent control are patriots and those who believe that such control is neither benevolent nor constitutional are simply naysayers. Mark it well, because this idea, in many forms, is the hammer with which conservatives will be bludgeoned repeatedly between now and November.

The “best angels of our legislators” couldn’t produce a pound cake we could all be proud of, much less a government health care system. What’s worse, there is no such thing as a universal health care system that works, at least not one run by the government. It’s a fantasy that leftists use to make the idea of government control more palatable. “Give us control and we’ll make the problems go away. If the problems get worse, it’s because you didn’t give us enough control.” It’s the infinite loop theory of governance.

I would also note the somewhat clever tactic of equating an issue of injustice like “civil-rights” with an issue of policy like nationalized health care or entitlement programs. While there are many on the Right who would certainly argue about the impact of specific aspects of civil rights legislation, there are no serious players on either side who advocate a return to a previous state of inequality. However, there are many on the Right who, with good reason, question government’s involvement with health care or any other area where its inherent red tape may prove more fatal than simply annoying. The two are utterly incomparable, but Klein must attempt to use the former to legitimize his position on the latter.

In Joe’s world their are, of course, appropriate roles for skeptics so long as those skeptics focus their energies on the evil desires of Republican politicians instead of the pure motives of Democrats. You can disagree with the government so long as the government in power isn’t one Klein agrees with.

I predict that Obama will show up on the wire services in a photo holding a dead bird that he “killed.” Otherwise, this effort is going to look a little thin.

Barack Obama did not hunt or fish as a child. He lives in a big city. And as an Illinois state legislator and a U.S. senator, he consistently backed gun control legislation.

But he is nevertheless making a play for pro-gun voters in rural Pennsylvania.

By highlighting his background in constitutional law and downplaying his voting record, Obama is engaging in a quiet but targeted drive to win over an important constituency that on the surface might seem hostile to his views.

The need to craft a strategy aimed at pro-gun voters underscores the potency of the issue in Pennsylvania, which claims one of the nation’s highest per capita membership rates in the National Rifle Association.

The Junior Senator, who has voted for almost every gun control measure to come before any legislative body he’s belonged to, is looking to get the typical white people in the rural areas of Pennsylvania to vote for him. These particular useful rubes happen to be more likely to own guns than the average person, but Obama refuses to concede their votes to Hillary. Instead, he’s going to try to blatantly bullshit them by highlighting his support of the right of sportsmen to own guns for the purpose of hunting. Not homeowners for the purpose of keeping some criminal piece of shit from raping their daughter mind you, but if you want to go duck hunting, you’ll be allowed to get your 12-gauge out of the mandatory gun safe, remove the federally mandated trigger lock, travel to the nearest government designated hunting area, and shoot the federally determined bag limit of the non-protected avian species of your choice. Cuz he’s a pro-Second-Amendment candidate like that.

This seems to be part of a larger effort by “progressive” policy advocates to try to “take back” the gun issue. The article goes on to talk about the “pro-gun” Democrats who are backing Obama. How in hell anyone who has the slightest affection for gun ownership could contemplate casting a vote that would give the Democratic Party more control over government power I don’t know, but the article lays on a healthy helping of the idea that the gun issue is about the freedom to hunt. It’s a painfully obvious and familiar tactic to anyone who has followed this issue at all, but it doesn’t have to work on the die-hard pro-Second-Amendment contingent. Gun control advocates only need convince enough of the “sportsmen” that they should support “common sense” gun control by pointing out that it won’t effect their precious shotguns and hunting rifles and they can get enough legislation passed to force defenselessness on the law-abiding populace.

I would wager every dollar I have to my name that when the Constitutional Congress gathered in Philadelphia and debated the issues surrounding the Second Amendment, no one in that room had so much as a single thought about using firearms to shoot a fucking duck for recreation. Not one goddamn flicker of an idea.

I used that cryptic title because “Nancy Pelosi is a steaming turdface” sounded harsh.  I came across this article on Drudge.  It’s a long explanation of an attempt by House Democrats to frame the debate surrounding General Petraeus’ impending testimony before Congress on progress in Iraq.  Here’s the money shot:

A few days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear before House and Senate committees to deliver their latest update on Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes clear what she hopes they will not say.

In a news conference together with the chairmen of the House committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs, she refers to the recent fighting in Iraq’s southern port city of Basra, saying Petraeus and Crocker should not attempt to put a positive spin on events.

While this might sound like standard Democrat posturing in an attempt to play up media pessimism about the operations in Iraq, it’s not.  It’s the Speaker of the House wagging a figurative finger at a Four-Star General and warning him not to lie.  A woman who has never spent a second of her life in a military uniform is lecturing a man who has served his country for more than three decades about being forthright.  In case your not familiar with exactly what General Petraeus’ background includes, here’s a biography from Wikipedia.

This marks the second time in a row that some leftist shitstains have, in essence, accused the Commanding General of Multi-National Force - Iraq of being a liar.  I’ve never been in the military, but I know quite a few former and current military officers and I would bet that to a man or woman every one of them would consider being lectured about forthrightness before the fact pretty much the same thing as being called a liar.

The worst part of this is that it’s not a major event, in fact accusing military personnel who support their own mission of being either gullible morons or liars has become the first play in the Democratic Party play book.  I don’t expect a worthless tit like Pelosi to be this self-aware, but maybe a person should re-examine their political position when they realize that it requires them to try to discredit a man of David Petraeus’ character.