Blogus Interruptus…
Bear with me as this has a long backstory…
Back in April I took off for Palau for the dive trip of a lifetime. It was all that and more – “more” meaning the hell I’ve put myself through the past few months trying to edit down and assemble two hours of vacation video and 60 gigs of underwater pictures and video into a single DVD that runs three freakin’ hours. It ain’t easy. It’s actually quite insane really. You have to be nuts to do it. And I swear that I’m never gonna put myself through this again. But I digress…
During my trip I lost my snorkel under the raging currents of the world famous Blue Corner. As you know I tracked the snorkel as it drifted across the Pacific ocean using GPS and an abacus and plotted its eventual arrival in the Hawaiian islands in early July. So I went to Maui, specifically Molokini crater, and retrieved my cherished snorkel. Buuuuut…
As the dive boat was heading back in to the harbor in Khei, we were intercepted by the Coast Gaurd and U.S. Customs. Brandishing their assault rifles, they wanted to see the import permit for my snorkel. Import permit? How the hell was I supposed to know you needed an import permit to retrieve a snorkel that floated in from a foreign country? So they seized my snorkel and arrested me. I got hauled into court and charged with smuggling. I was facing some hard time. Fortunately the judge turned out to be a diver and empathized with my quest to be reunited with my long suffering snorkel. He dismissed the case despite the strong objections of the U.S. Attorneys Office, which apparently is afraid of getting in the water, let alone diving. I flew home. But my snorkel was still impounded; the victim of bureaucratic red tape.
Yesterday I received a letter saying my snorkel, after an exhaustive search for hidden contraband, would be released to me. So I’m off to Kauai to finally have my snorkel repatriated to me. Yes, I know I got busted in Maui and I’m now going to Kauai. Apparently the impound yard is on Kauai. Don’t ask me why. I don’t understand how our government works.
Blogging resumes September 12th…
September 1, 2009 at 3:44 pm
Sounds like a fishy story to me.
September 1, 2009 at 4:00 pm
Are you saying I’m all wet?
September 1, 2009 at 4:01 pm
You’re gonna need a bigger boat.
September 1, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Spud, I thought the snorkel story was a joke! I would think this was, too, but really…you can’t make this up. Good Luck! Stay out of jail! We’ll be here talking about tennis…or nursing homes. Bars in Monterey?
September 1, 2009 at 4:13 pm
The Favorite Snorkel swam before him as the monomaniac incarnation of all those malicious agencies which some deep men feel eating in them, till they are left living on with half a heart and half a lung. That intangible malignity which has been from the beginning; to whose dominion even the modern Christians ascribe one-half of the worlds; which the ancient Ophites of the east reverenced in their statue devil; — Spud did not fall down and worship it like them; but deliriously transferring its idea to the abhorred Favorite Snorkel, he pitted himself, all mutilated, against it. All that most maddens and torments; all that stirs up the lees of things; all truth with malice in it; all that cracks the sinews and cakes the brain; all the subtle demonisms of life and thought; all evil, to crazy Spud, were visibly personified, and made practically assailable in the Favorite Snorkel. He piled upon the Favorite Snorkel the sum of all the general rage and hate felt by his whole race from Adam down; and then, as if his chest had been a mortar, he burst his hot heart’s shell upon it.
September 1, 2009 at 4:32 pm
^
I’ll have what he’s having.
September 1, 2009 at 4:36 pm
I’ll have what he’s having.
C’mon, Joe. You know what that passage is from.
Think high school English class.
No, not the cheerleaders in their uniforms ignoring you; the books, the books.
September 1, 2009 at 4:46 pm
^
Who told you about the cheerleaders? “…in their uniforms” was a nice touch, by the way.
September 1, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Spud, I am guessing you’re not married, because your wife would KILL YOU for obsessing over this snorkel. I’m mad at you just because the site will be unattended!
So is this our official thread for the next 11 days?
September 1, 2009 at 6:12 pm
I still think the Uighers were behind all of this, especially since you lost if diving off Palau.
Did your snorkel have to spend any time at Gitmo?
Did they waterboard it? Or threaten harm to its family?
September 1, 2009 at 7:04 pm
You’re gonna need a bigger boat.
…guffaw…
dun dun… dun dun… dun dun dun dun dun dun dun dun…
September 3, 2009 at 8:46 am
Spud
Imus signed with Fox Business News
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/
September 6, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Needs a good typo over here to get things started. Unfortunately, I never make mistakes…
September 6, 2009 at 2:52 pm
^
Don’t worry sweetie, I’ll take care of it. As usual…
September 8, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Oh joy…. literally. Obnoxious wench Joy Behar just landed her own show on CNN Headline News.
Yet another reason not to watch CNN.
September 8, 2009 at 8:31 pm
BR, wasn’t that announced a while ago?
September 9, 2009 at 11:45 am
Hijack situation in Mexico. Everybody’s covering it. Pics are a feed from Noticeros, which seems a little TOO determined to get their logo on the screen.
September 9, 2009 at 5:05 pm
The president spoke in general terms about: pre-existing conditions, dropped coverages or caps, out-of-pocket limits, routine and check-up care required at no extra charge (says it saves money but that point is debatable), everyone will be able to get coverage through an insurance exchange, tax credits based upon need for those who cannot afford, John McCain’s catastrophic coverage proposal, businesses required to offer and individuals required to carry basic health coverage, small businesses would be exempt.
My initial reaction is “not bad”. He shouldn’t have said several times that “misinformation” was getting out. Instead, if should have straight-up admitted that the existing bills were poorly thought out. Calling the “death panels” thing a lie… well, read the bill and it’s pretty clear how one could arrive at that conclusion.
“Choice and competition” got a standing O from everyone. He didn’t propose the simplest solution, which is to drop the restrictions of allowing insurance to be purchased across state lines. Instead he again pushed for the government option, and he misrepresented the CBO numbers in his statement.
..and he went right back to the partisan attacks. I wasn’t born yesterday so, sadly, I can’t trust this guy. Darn.
September 9, 2009 at 5:10 pm
He couldn’t resist his requisite slam against his predecessor. Someone should offer the president a lesson in using calculators. The Iraq War has certainly been expensive, but it’s entire cost from day 1 until now was less than his “Stimulus” package that he pushed through without anybody having a chance to read it.
September 9, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Only offered up an “initiative” toward medical malpractice limits. Barely a bone for something that is so obviously a major wasted health care expense. Not just in terms of defencive medicine but for the ridiculous malpractice insurance premiums as well. Oh well, I don’t really pay for those expenses; you do.
September 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm
Watched it again to closely follow precisely what he said (Love DVRs) and… contradictions. Smooth-talking hood-winker. Important details such as paying for it muddled and inconsistent. Finding myself even less convinced.
September 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm
These guys are ridiculous. Their new bogeyman is Sarah Palin.
Their new talking points showed it today….Obama jumped her tonight.. and Axelrod followed up on “The Factor”, calling her out by name.
Why don’t you actually write a bill that makes sense, instead of focusing your energies on someone who isn’t even a politician anymore?
You can start by adding tort reform to any healthcare bill. But we know you’re beholden to the scumbag trial lawyers, so that will never happen.
September 9, 2009 at 6:25 pm
I speak to lots of people every day about some very personal issues. I’ve had to learn how to tell when I’m being played… The President was playing us and not very skillfully. Which is odd because there’s no way he pulled a “used car sales job” on members of Congress… so was his intended audience little old ladies?
September 9, 2009 at 7:06 pm
“…so was his intended audience little old ladies?”
Yes. He’s lost the 55 and over crowd on healthcare, more so than any other group, according to Gallup.
September 9, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Little old ladies aren’t stupid. Perhaps the president believes otherwise.
September 9, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I don’t ever want to hear another whiny liberal complain about Republicans “fearmongering”.
This is from the AP tonight:
“President Barack Obama Wednesday demanded Congress act now on health reform, warning MORE AMERICANS WOULD DIE if Washington again does nothing to expand care and cut the costs of insurance. “
September 9, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Here’s the exact quote, from the Liar & Fearmonger in Chief:
“Everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. Our deficit will grow. More families will go bankrupt. More businesses will close. More Americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and need it most. And more will die as a result. We know these things to be true.”
September 9, 2009 at 7:57 pm
… after he called for an end to partisan bickering, fear mongering, and demagoguery. “The time is NOW…”, “The season is at hand…”
I expect all politicians to frame their words and highlight certain aspects in order to favour their points of view and agenda. I do not appreciate Chicago-style flat-out lies and so probably won’t ever trust anything this man says again. In law, medicine, business, and personal relationships we rely on things being done in “good faith”. President Obama did not speak in good faith tonight and so showed his lack of respect for all of us.
I learned tonight that he not only lacks executive experience, he also lacks integrity.
September 9, 2009 at 8:27 pm
BR- They’ve been attacking Palin ever since her “death panels” Facebook post gained traction, and contributed to this summer’s difficulties.
But, it’s also the reason I think the Republicans are smart for keeping her around. The Democrats can’t help themselves when it comes to Palin… they really really hate her. If the Republicans are smart, they’ll keep her around for the 2012 election… and have her run for President.
“What?!” I can hear ya’ll saying… but hear me out. The intention won’t be for her to WIN the nomination, rather to be a perpetual distraction, focusing the Democrats attacks and resources on HER, not on the “real” candidate. This is what happened to the Republicans in 2008. They were so focused on defeating Hillary Clinton, that when she turned out not be the nominee, they were left scratching their head, trying to dig up dirt at the last minute. By that point (as we know), they couldn’t gain traction, they couldn’t form a good argument against, and Obama waltzed his way into the White House. If Palin serves as a significant distraction, and target for the Democrats ire, another stronger candidate might have the ability to actually unseat Obama.
But that’s just my theory…
September 9, 2009 at 8:32 pm
That is one low-down, shifty theory you got there, Blue. I’m sorry, but I have a grudging respect for a truly evil strategist. It takes talent to think those dark thoughts. Lee Atwater, anyone?
September 9, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Not such a crazy theory. Gov. Palin seems more interested in making a difference than she does in holding elected office, and she connects with average folks from all regions once they stop allowing somebody else to tell them what she said.
She’s comfortable with who she is and knows she’ll be fine whatever happens. So the tactics the nasty ones like to use to discredit people aren’t working with her. The more they attack her the more sympathy she gets, especially now that she’s no longer governor. Smart chick.
September 10, 2009 at 12:20 am
The Iraq War has certainly been expensive, but it’s entire cost from day 1 until now was less than his “Stimulus” package that he pushed through without anybody having a chance to read it.
I think you missed the point about the war funding. The cost wasn’t ‘budgeted’ for – it was funded ‘off the books’. That is, in the annual budget bill, the only expenses budgeted for DoD were the normal ‘maintenance’ costs of operating a military, with costs associated with the war being ‘supplemental’ spending bills. It’s a way to make yourself look ‘prudent’ by putting forth a reasonable annual budget and then pretending an ongoing war was a big surprise you couldn’t possibly have planned for. After the first year, funding for the war should have been included in the big budget bill, rather than maintaining the fiction that we were STILL being surprised by the sudden emergency that had been going on for 3-4 years.
In any event, most Americans would rather spend huge sums of money rescuing American businesses and trying to create American jobs than just sending it bundled up in big pallets to be set on fire in the desert.
Gov. Palin seems more interested in making a difference than she does in holding elected office
Heh. You can say that again.
September 10, 2009 at 12:32 am
You can start by adding tort reform to any healthcare bill.
Ah yes – the old GOP standby, tort reform. It’s almost as popular as capital gains tax cuts. But does it actually lower medical costs?
No.
http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2009/09/would_tort_reform_make_much_di.html
September 10, 2009 at 3:42 am
Ah yes – the old GOP standby, tort reform. It’s almost as popular as capital gains tax cuts. But does it actually lower medical costs?
The reason(s) why tort reform is needed are that:
Malpractice insurance rates increase irregardless if a malpractice case goes to trial. For example “Patient A” files lawsuit against Doctor & the evidence suggests Doctor performed properly & all recommended tests were followed. Case works its way through depositions, filings, research, etc… Judge makes decision(s) about Patient A’s case & the case gets either dropped or dismissed.
Following completion of the case…doctor’s malpractice rates rise & doctor is then forced to raise her rates to cover the costs.
I have a friend (doctor) in which this has happened & her rates (malpractice insurance ) & she has been forced to raise her rates to cover the increase.
If tort reform is not important then why are there so many television commercials created by trial lawyers targeting doctors?
September 10, 2009 at 7:23 am
Chips – it sounds like malpractice insurance reform would do more to help doctors than ‘tort reform’. Because as it is currently defined, tort reform protects incompetent doctors and insurance companies at the expense of injured patients.
I would not be averse to something that provided for penalties for filing frivolous or fraudulent malpractice suits, but capping awards is an insurance-company-profit protection plan, and we’ve seen enough of that crap.
September 10, 2009 at 7:24 am
I think the article focused too much on the “huge award settlements” that tort reform would help prevent. Sure, that’s one element of it… but I believe there would be bigger cost savings if NATIONALLY doctors didn’t have to spend so much of their own money on insurance (for lawsuit defending), and so much of their time doing defensive things. Didn’t President Obama talk about how often doctors run unnecessary tests… wouldn’t tort reform help cut down on that?
But moving away from the issue itself, I don’t understand why anyone (sans lawyers and politicians dependent on lawyer money) would object to tort reform. Perhaps it won’t help as much as the Republicans want… but so what? Isn’t even little bit a help? I have yet to hear the downside of this… other than, if the Right likes it, we on the left don’t… so I’m unsure what the real problem is. To me, the real problem is the influence the special interest lawyer’s lobby has over the White House and Congress.
Cue quote from Howard Dean:
September 10, 2009 at 7:29 am
Just caught the beginning of this morning’s Way Too Early. Willie says “This is Way Too Early, I’m Willie Geist”, and in the background Scarborough and company shout, “You lie!”. Good stuff.
September 10, 2009 at 7:42 am
I don’t understand why anyone (sans lawyers and politicians dependent on lawyer money) would object to tort reform.
Because I don’t see why anyone who loses some physical functionality because of a doctor who shouldn’t be practicing should have their damages limited to (in some versions) 500,000. Is losing a limb, or lung capacity, or the ability to hold a job, worth 500,000? What amount of money would you accept to give up your ability to walk, for instance? How much would you accept to give up a spouse or a parent?
The point of PUNITIVE damages is to punish. It is currently the only way society has to try to police bad doctors, since the AMA will not.
September 10, 2009 at 8:09 am
I think many people, in their zeal to protect insurance companies, have forgotten the very reason why outlandishly large punitive damages are awarded – it is to force people willfully putting other people at risk to CHANGE.
Case in point – the Ford Pinto. Rear-end low impact crashes – which would normally be walk-away collisions – caused more than 500 burn deaths. And Ford knew about the design defect before production and decided it would be cheaper to pay off an expected number of wrongful death lawsuits than to fix it. that is, Ford decided 500 deaths was acceptable to save their company a few million dollars.
ONLY when juries started awarding huge punitive damages did they fix the issue. Simple compensatory damages do not provide enough incentive to force companies or individuals like doctors/hospitals to change bad practices.
September 10, 2009 at 8:27 am
ONLY when juries started awarding huge punitive damages did they fix the issue. Simple compensatory damages do not provide enough incentive to force companies or individuals like doctors/hospitals to change bad practices.
Art, I’m in partial agreement with you that large punitive damages did force the insurance companies to modify bad practices. However, when will we hold attorneys who file “bad lawsuits” against doctors & insurance companies?
Case in point…my cousin was returning home from work @ 11pm & was broad sided by a motorcyclist whowas trying to pass four vehicle on a two lane road at one time. Per the police, the motorcyclist was clearly intoxicated. The hospital did not run a blood alcohol reading until several hours later. The police report indicated the motorcyclist was at fault & he was the only one seriously injured.
Motorcyclist sues my brother’s insurance company & instead of fighting against the dipsh!t motorcyclist the insurance company “settles” the case. The insurance company told my brother & my dad that it’s less costly to settle a case then it is to fight.
I wanted my brother & my parents (brother was 19 at the time) to fight back & sue the motorcyclist & his attorney. Unfortunately, there was no legal recourse.
After the insurance company settled the case, my brother’s insurance rates were raised because of the accident.
I’m all in favor of taking care of bad doctors…however we also need to take care of bad lawyers who clog up the system with worthless crap. Perhaps it’s time to follow the English court model of “loser pays”.
September 10, 2009 at 8:29 am
^
Sorry was talking to my cousin on the phone…it was my brother who was involved in the accident.
Having problems multi-tasking today
September 10, 2009 at 8:37 am
I’m all in favor of taking care of bad doctors…however we also need to take care of bad lawyers who clog up the system with worthless crap. Perhaps it’s time to follow the English court model of “loser pays”.
I could support this.
September 10, 2009 at 8:54 am
Just think, with tort reform, the ultimate scum-douche-bag John Edwards never would’ve gotten rich, and the country would be so much better for it.
September 10, 2009 at 9:07 am
Who was the big Tucker Carlson fan on here? Was it Missy?
I can’t remember, but figured they’d like this excellent recap of last night’s Liefest:
” Never has a president been warped by Washington quicker. At times tonight, Obama sounded like an embattled second-termer with a 35 percent approval rating. What percentage of his speech was spent lashing out at his enemies, real and imagined? Radio and cable-television pundits, George W. Bush, former Congresses, unnamed ghouls employing “scare tactics,” whose “only agenda is to stop reform at any cost”—they’re all against him, Obama said. And they’re lying.
This isn’t how confident leaders speak. These are the complaints of a man on his way to bitterness. So soon?”
September 10, 2009 at 9:24 am
Red, I have to agree with Tucker on this one. Obama may be ‘cool’, but he’s thin-skinned, an affliction that can quickly consume a president. I agree with Obama’s assessment of the shrill opposition, but it’s not a good idea for him to spend so much time on it. That’s what his attack dogs are for. Keep the oratory ‘up here’ and get the job done.
September 10, 2009 at 9:28 am
Joe, he’s a narcissist. He is so consumed with himself & so absolutely sure he’s right on everything, that he can’t stand criticism of any kind.
He can’t stand that the FOX network dared not air his speech last night, so he took a shot at them today.
I think he has a larger ego that Bill Clinton, which I didn’t think was possible.
September 10, 2009 at 11:00 am
I love armchair psychoanalysis – any fool can play.
September 10, 2009 at 11:14 am
Red, you don’t have to be a narcissist to be thin-skinned or sure of your point of view. Take you, for example (joking!). And all presidents have huge egos. The guy’s got a little too much compassion, and is a little too interested in “getting along”, to qualify as a narcissist.
September 10, 2009 at 11:28 am
Well, it’s a little bit of both (RE: Obama’s thin skin and/or narcissism). Obama, rather obviously, views himself as a master problem solver. One might think, “Doesn’t every President and politician see this?” and yes, they do… but differently. Obama sees his responsibility as fixing the problems with those who perpetually dislike us… he wants to go after the tough-luck cases. In his zeal, however, to “solve the problem” he makes two mistakes… he neglects to maintain the relationships we already have, and he’s willing to make too many concessions in the effort to “make nice.” IMO, his need to be a hero in this respect, cause him to make mistakes, and enter deals we shouldn’t be a part of.
September 10, 2009 at 1:15 pm
This Congress attempted to sneak through HR 2519 (To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow the deduction of attorney-advanced expenses and court costs in contingency fee cases) as a pay-off to trial lawyers. What this would do is encourage the filing of lawsuits even when the likelihood of winning is very low, as deductions against profits effectively result in higher profits for these firms.
There are cases in which the malpractice of a physician results in extremely high costs for the victim over a lifetime and this is precisely what our tort system is designed to address. What has happened over the years, however, is that line between true malpractice and unforeseeable outcomes has been blurred to the point where insurance companies have had to force physicians and hospitals to settle out of court even when no malpractice occurred.
This happens all the time:
The patient fills out a medical history asking about any treatment received over past 12 months. Then a nurse goes over these same questions verbally, and the doctor later does the same. Each time the answer received is, “No, I’ve not had any medical care other than checkups.”
Now, I can see that the meds I’ve prescribed are inexplicably not doing a darn thing and the patient is getting progressively worse. During a subsequent visit and in exasperation I finally get right in their face and ask again, ” Are you SURE you didn’t have ANY medical procedures done recently?” Then I get, “Well, only a small cyst removed from my throat about six weeks ago, but I didn’t think that counted.” UHG! One of the questions specifically queries whether or not they were administered any anesthesia, because that can negate the efficacy of the drug I gave….
Feeling miserable and unable to work, and with virtually nothing to lose, this person and their attorney file a lawsuit that has no possible chance of winning in court – I have their false responses in writing. Alas, it’s cheaper to just pay out $100K and make them go away. You, of course, are really paying for that.
September 11, 2009 at 10:52 am
Re-watching the video of when Rep Joe Wilson (R-SC) shouted “Liar” at the president, I see that I had overlooked the fact the president, himself, had called “prominent politicians” liars just moments before.
September 11, 2009 at 2:17 pm
^He’s a Democrat, so it’s perfectly acceptable. You didn’t know that?
September 11, 2009 at 7:52 pm
No, I sort of hoped I’d see that transformation I’ve seen in most past presidents. Not long after taking office their shoulders lifted and their words sounded the voice of The United States Of America.
This guy still sounds…. I don’t know… unpresidential. A president would hold himself above that.
September 11, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Al, it’s ridiculous, isn’t it? He sounded more presidential before he got the job!
September 11, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I’m still hoping.
September 12, 2009 at 2:15 am
I sort of hoped I’d see that transformation I’ve seen in most past presidents. Not long after taking office their shoulders lifted and their words sounded the voice of The United States Of America.
You say you saw this transformation in MOST past presidents in your lifetime? I’m curious about the ones in which you did NOT notice the great Assuming-the-Mantle-of-State effect. Would you say, for instance, that Bill Clinton sounded the ‘voice of the United States of America’? Jimmy Carter? Gerald Ford? GHW Bush?
September 12, 2009 at 5:34 am
You remind me of an angry little chiuaua, art. Always a nasty edge to your bark.
I did not see this transformation in President Carter, but we’re going back a ways and I was young. For the others you list, absolutely.
September 12, 2009 at 6:34 am
If I understand what you’re saying, Al… when I think of that “speaking for all of us” moment, I think of Reagan’s speech after the Challenger blew up. Now I was only… um… 4 (and 3 days)… but it is one of the speeches that has lasted a long time, and I’ve heard it many times as an adult.
That’s the “we’re all in this together” moment that a President is supposed to have. I agree, I think Obama had those moments BEFORE he was elected, and at his inauguration… but since, it’s all been politics as usual. But it has only been a few months, so who knows what the next few years will bring.
September 12, 2009 at 7:12 am
That would be an extreme example, blue, but yes. Consider during the ’92 campaign when Governor Clinton, certainly already a polished politician, almost always carried a not-quite-serious demeanor with him while barraging his opponent, the sitting president, without paying much attention to the larger picture of what he was saying or its consequences. A political season so nothing wrong with what he said from that respect, but his voice carried little weight.
After the election, President-elect Clinton handled himself appropriately and even remarked when troops were sent into Somalia that there’s “only one president at a time”. Presidential-sounding words, but still he always looked as though his suit didn’t quite fit and sounded… oh, country bumpkin-ish.
Certainly not more that two weeks after his inauguration, as the new president walks to the lectern, his suit fits perfectly but due to the weight on his shoulders instead of from the skill of a tailor. His gait is.. different somehow. Still having that same Arkansas accent, his vocal timber has softened and his words are now carefully measured. We hear the voice of The United States of America.
Exactly when this transformation takes place or precisely what qualities in the person actually change I don’t know. But when it does politics be damned; I get goosebumps whenever I hear the announcer’s “Ladies and gentlemen, The President Of The United States“.
It’s September. I don’t feel goosebumps. Still hoping.
September 12, 2009 at 8:27 am
Al, it’s slightly unrelated, but worth mentioning. I got the goosebumps, as I always do, when the announcer did his POTUS thing the other night…then they remained as our first African-American president came through shaking hands. Again, when he got to the podium and traded smiles with Michelle.
I’m not entirely thrilled with his first 9 months in office – I’m never that way about any politician – but it’s gonna take me a long time to get over that image.
September 12, 2009 at 8:29 am
I’m kind of surprised, Al – I expected your list to exclude Clinton.
But when it does politics be damned
There’s no way on earth the right in this country is going to allow THIS President to forget politics for one single second.
September 12, 2009 at 9:46 am
joe: That’s one of the reasons I really want to feel those goosebumps. I want race to be irrelevant and it should be but, hey, having the first black guy as president is a cool thing – a new era to be proud of.
Why would you be surprised, art? You’ve been reading my words on this blog for well over a year. Are you naturally cynical or is that nastiness you seem to always resort to a learned trait? It is the ongoing ideological debate that allows America to continually renew itself. I think our country is better off when the conservative side wins out more often than does the liberal one, but if either side completely takes over our American dream will certainly die.
It was President Obama, himself, who resorted to campaign-style political rhetoric during his joint session address. He could have used that unique opportunity to speak directly to the American People by saying, “I heard you. While I disagree that the reform proposal would result in ‘death panels’, illegals getting coverage, or even eventual rationing, I promise you this: I promise you that I – we – will work with members of Congress from both sides to insert language that guarantees these fears will not become reality.” Americans, including those elected officials of the opposing political party who were sitting in that chamber want to be able to rally around their president.
Instead, he called “prominent politicians” liars and couldn’t help himself but to once again blame his predecessor. That was not the Democratic nominee for president speaking; That was POTUS. Time for the man to bury his pompous attitude and to begin acting his office.
September 12, 2009 at 10:49 am
I’m cynical, Al. I’ve been around this particular block enough to know that when a Democrat says something about a Republican president, it’s ‘rude and disrespectful’ but when a Republican says the same thing about a Democratic president, he’s being ‘brave and forthright and speaking for all americans’. What’s sleazy in a Democrat becomes ‘pragmatic’ if the trait belongs to a member of the GOP, etc etc.
It’s called IOKIYAR – it’s okay if you are a republican – and MOST of the conservative posters on this blog are guilty of it in spades.
September 12, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Boy, I sure would like to see an example of what you’re talking about Art.
It sounds to me more like LTS… or Liberal Thin Skin. The “we can dish it out, call other people Hitler… insult, yell, scream, and carry on… but don’t you dare do it, or we’ll have to call you ignorant racists.”
October 5, 2009 at 6:43 am
[...] Blogus Interruptus… Ok, since y’all have been clamoring in the comments for a snorkel update, here goes… (for the uninitiated start here and then go here) [...]
April 18, 2010 at 4:26 pm
[...] Maui but had it confiscated by US Customs. Then I went back to Hawaii to have it repatriated to me months later only to find out when I got there that it had disappeared. Then it turned up in New York City where [...]