Comments Posted By obamathered
Displaying 131 To 140 Of 152 Comments
DAVID FRUM, THE BIG TENT, AND SPLENETIC CONSERVATIVES
I'd take your bet re an Obama implosion, which I see as inevitable since his economic policies will fail badly. That alone won't save the conservative movement any more than McCain could help the GOP, but it is a start. Please don't respond with a stupid "you are rooting for failure" line, people. I fucking expect Obama to be a dismal failure. His solutions have a history of failure.
Your larger point is valid. Nonetheless, there are some principles that can't be whored out, among them rule of law. If the Democrats want amnesty for illegal aliens, as an example, let the public know precisely which party has trashed the rule of law. This is a needed discussion, but at some point accomodation becomes abandonment of principle. I know there isn't a bright line but we need to acknowledge one exists. The problem with Frum and company is that they start to froth as quickly as social cons whenever that unpleasant fact is brought up.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 24.01.2009 @ 10:44
Only Democrat trash would push this one, and only if Obama were a Republican. Look for McCain and his ilk to join with like-mindless Democrats and call the constitution hate speech or something. Better efforts should be focused on retaking Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012 as this left-wing cabal drives the economy further into the ground and the populace realizes "hey, their bullshit didn't work."
Interesting as trivia, though.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 21.01.2009 @ 20:41
WINNING WARS AND FIGHTING TERRORISM WITH 'HUMILITY AND RESTRAINT'
Exhibit A in the futility of seeking logic from a moonbat:
Chuck Tucson Said:
4:40 pmjackson1234
But if Obama foolishly pulls out of Iraq too soon and genocide ensues there, I don’t expect them to support reintervention.
How do you think he will know if it’s too soon?
Hey, Einstein, maybe the mass slaughter indicates The One didn't listen to the JCOS and intelligence services. Reckon?
Comment Posted By obamathered On 21.01.2009 @ 20:34
I WILL MISS THE LEFT'S BUSH DERANGEMENT
I am laughing hysterically as I go through these posts, particularly the barking mad moonbat shit stains. Just before the 2004 election, I told a left-wing friend after one of these disjointed rants that type insanity had helped Bush more than she could ever realize and would get him back into office. I did it both to needle and because I believed it. Oddly, she agreed and promptly launched into another psychotic anti-Bush diatribe.
Same as it ever was...
Comment Posted By obamathered On 19.01.2009 @ 19:31
Geihtner simply must not be confirmed. After it emerged that he had been reimbursed for his unpaid taxes, that was the last straw. Republican Senators need to man up and oppose this nomination with the same gusto as they should oppose the graft-ready "economic stimulus bill." So far they haven't, but the ground has shifted so much they may surprise us.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 17.01.2009 @ 12:12
RIGHT OR WRONG, BUSH MADE AN IMPACT
Bottom fifth? Hardly. We can't be sure exactly where, but that is a stretch.
Bush's legacy will be judged by how the next president responds to our next domestic terror attack. If it happens on Obama's watch (or that of the next president or the next) and he (or she)does poorly in comparison with Bush's response to 9/11, the current president's stock will rise and the successor couldn't improve their fortunes if they learned to heal the blind. If, on the other hand, the next time a terrorist attacks on domestic soil and the president acts comparably or exceeds the Bush response to 9/11, Bush will be seen as a lightweight although hardly as low as you place him.
This is the brutal reality. Bush's legacy will be determined by how a future president responds to the next attack on the homeland. I'm certain the president takes perverse pleasure from that irony.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 15.01.2009 @ 19:09
PANETTA WILL HAVE OBAMA'S BACK AT CIA
The bottom line is despite his faults, there were no terror attacks of note after 9/11 on el W's watch. Obama has chosen a clueless pre-9/11 CIA director who happens to have blood on his hands from the Clinton Administration's willful ignorance. The tiny man who will soon occupy the White House will be solely responsible for any terror attack. The Empty Suit in Chief will be responsible for who he chose to prevent such an attack.
I'm sorry, Rick, but those of us who have not consumed the Kool-Aid await
Comment Posted By obamathered On 9.01.2009 @ 01:29
the moment to kick the shit out of the next president. And the day draws nigh.
And if it matters to you at all his experience with managing competing interests at OMB is exactly the kind of manager that’s needed at CIA.
You know, when I close my eyes for some odd reason Burt Lance doesn't spring to mind as an opportunity missed at CIA. The director doesn't require a moustache, but in the event you care, the competing interests (largely nerdy bureau jockeys) have specialized skills that would put the number crunchers at OMB to shame. Balancing those interests is far more difficult than simply dropping a brief on the president's desk, proofing press releases and plugging leaks. The disgruntled careerists, not the directors, have been the problem. Expect that to be exacerbated by the hire of a--and I'll continue to use the term--political hack. I expect even more leaks and deliberate sabotage of White House policy as a direct result, as Neo pointed out. If there were more substance to and experience behind Obama, he would have gone with someone within the Agency. As it is, PR and a sloppy base pick ruled the day.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 6.01.2009 @ 21:16
Let me understand. Obama couldn't have "done much better" than selecting the singularly unqualified Panetta? Because this political hack can lay a PDB on Obama's desk and not leak too much makes him a good choice? Hell, Obama could have conducted a lottery among the Capitol Hill Police Department and come up with someone who fit that criteria. Obama has put the nation at grave risk because he lacks the gravitas to surround himself with capable people.
Stop exaggerating. Panetta is hardly a "political hack" - far from it. He has served at the highest level of government and knows exactly what kind of intel brief the president needs. And if it matters to you at all his experience with managing competing interests at OMB is exactly the kind of manager that's needed at CIA.
He's not going to put on a mustache and go out to spy on anybody. And he has intel experience from his time in the army. Put it all together and you have about as good as you can get going outside the agency.
I will grant that getting an insider might have been better. But given how the CIA has treated presidents lately, Obama probably made the right choice.
ed.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 6.01.2009 @ 18:46
The American public has the attention span of a gnat and the patience of a cobra. Exhibit A is the Iraq War. Hence I disagree with you, Rick. If past is prologue, this boondoggle will not result in much stimulus at all. If that proves out, as it likely will, today's Senate Republicans will watch their numbers grow and Obama could be in a similar situation as Clinton was in his third year.
This is the Democrats' baby. There will be no way around it.
Comment Posted By obamathered On 30.12.2008 @ 18:41
