I Don’t Know

In a country of 300 million people, how did two jackasses get their party's nomination? And how is it that the also-rans were even worse? Joe Farah doesn't want McCain to be President, and he felt that way even before Sarah Palin ventured onto the scene and made real the possibility that she could run as a serious candidate in 2012. He loves Sarah. Any decent, rational American would.

The trouble is, decent, rational Americans may not be in the majority any longer, and I don't say that just to be provocative. Crude and rude people who despise tradition and who have little or no respect for the people who made America great and who keep it safe today… they're everywhere – in the most unlikely places – like next door to you. Many claim to value education, but they are dumb as dirt themselves, and they want to simply throw more money at a failing system – the system that failed them.

Of course, liberals have done almost all the damage, and they are the very people whom the above continue to count on to rectify all of America's problems – that means we have a possible majority of Americans who are insane – as well as dumb. Glenn Beck wrote a column a couple months back in which he pointed out something I hadn't given any thought to – that virtually all American cities in decline are being run by Democrats and have been for decades.

Is there a solution short of taking America back by force? I don't know. We can wait until all of America resembles Detroit… and then wait some more because Detroit hasn't kicked out its Democrats. On the other hand, I don't believe the national electorate is as delusional as Detroit's is. On the other hand (the third hand), with a Democrat as President and Democrats running Congress, it's anybody's guess what America will look like in four years, both economically, and demographically… or whether English will still be our primary language.

What would it look like today if Republicans had never been in charge?

The answer is, pretty much like it does right now. Republicans are not America friendly either. Neither is John McCain if he's to be judged by what he said in the debate last night about buying mortgages, climate bills, and healthcare, not that his healthcare program is bad, it's just that he made it as clear as mud.

I feel like I'm watching one of those movies that opens with a guy saying in voiceover: "How did things ever get this way," and then it flashes back to a moment just before the guy's life as he knew it abruptly ends.

Will 2008 be the year America's life ends? Maybe it has already? I look back at the debate and at the many times John McCain could have flayed Obama, and I remember having the same feelings about the first debate. Then I flash on specific things the Dem know-nothing nobody said, and I recall Rush Limbaugh's "hanging curve" metaphor. McCain had to be extra stupid, extra ill-informed, or extra weak not to have knocked Obama out of the park.

Everyday I hear and read people who make the most brilliant observations about what's wrong – with the country, with Democrats, and with Obama, And McCain didn't even parrot one of them. What does his staff do? Shouldn't some people be assigned to ferreting out the most pithy comments?

That's what prompted me to do my own running commentary while the debate was in progress – I wanted to see how I'd react to the same questions at the same moment. Time didn't permit elaboration, but looking at my results, I believe I could have done at least as well as McCain did.

And therein lies the problem, I'm sure you agree.

Now before I send anyone reading this into deeper depression, it's important to understand that we don't really know what's going on. We are literally living in a surreal world. Nothing we read can be taken at face value, no poll can be believed, and I still can't accept that America would elect someone as rotten as Obama.

After the first debate, I said (and it seems even more apparent now) that John McCain might rather lose an election than a war, but it's very clear that he'd also rather lose an election than offend one of his friends in Congress.

But there's still time, and again, don't take any poll seriously, not only because they can't be believed, but because they are just another tool the media is using in their attempt to demoralize the right. Like an athlete, even one that's losing, you've got to run all-out to the finish line.

The least terrible candidate must prevail! If he doesn't, America will be slightly more worse off than we'd be under President McCain.

But look on the bright side – there's always the possibility that John McCain will win and immediately say that he's achieved his dream, and so he's stepping down so that President Palin can become the first woman President.

Such an act of heroism would be forever unparalleled… and very characteristic of a maverick!

Read and post comments | Send to a friend

Advertisements

About tedwest

A longtime veteran of comedy and political forums, I decided that I needed a more restful venue because... well... I finally hate everybody. Except my wife that is... and my ex-wife.. and... no, that's about it. I lead about as simple a life as one can, preferring activities that include anything that doesn't involve going out and seeing YOU! And I particularly enjoy what I call "Get the Bitch" movies on Lifetime. You know the ones where the intended victim finally does something so incredibly stupid that she forfeits her right to live, and from that moment on you're rooting for the stalker. Of course, it rarely works out the way you want, but when it does, the feeling you get is... well, there's nothing else like it, other than, maybe, eating chocolate chip cookies. Oh, and I'm proudly anti-wildlife, both foreign and domestic, and anti-environment - especially foreign environments. I think Howard Stern put it best when he said, "If fifty percent of the population died tomorrow, I can live with that." And I feel the same about the other fifty percent, so together, we've pretty much got it all covered.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to I Don’t Know

  1. Lexann says:

    Republicans are not America friendly either. Neither is John McCain if
    he's to be judged by what he said in the debate last night about buying
    mortgages, climate bills, and healthcare; not that his healthcare
    program is bad, it's just that he made it as clear as mud.Please don't judge all Republicans by McCain. As Republicans go, he is very liberal. Some of his proposals are ridiculous (that "[the gov't] must buy Americans bad mortgages" comment he made on more than one occasion was outrageous!) I would say a large percentage of Republicans are voting against Obama, rather than for McCain. I think McCain's got some good points, but I'd never vote for him if there were any other choice….and I still can't accept that America would elect someone as rotten as Obama.I thought that about Clinton, too, and America elected him…twice!…he's stepping down so that President Palin can become the first woman President. Such an act of heroism would be forever unparalleled… and very characteristic of a maverick!Dream on!

  2. TedWest says:

    I don't judge Republicans by McCain. Even more in their favor, I don't judge them by Bush who is, to date, their ultimate disgrace (yes, worse than Nixon). I judge them by their abject failure to lead and to adhere to conservative principles – and for making Clinton's second term and Barack Obama possible.
    I blame the Bushes for ultimately and completely destroying the party though. I wrote something about just that today which I haven't finished and don't know if I will, but the working title is: What Will We Call The New party?

  3. Lexann says:

    I will agree with you, at least in part. I used to like Bush the second. I thought he showed strong leadership on 9/11, and although I was puzzled by the Iraq invasion, I believed him when he told the nation that this was the correct response. Now that we are there, I want to see us finish victorious, but now I don't believe it was the right move in the first place. But I could forgive him that. It's his socialist policies of late that I find unforgivable. I knew that "economic stimulus" check was a fiasco! That's socialism in action like I've never seen before in America. But this latest $700B bill to buy up Wall Street is unforgivable! Now they are talking about buying out controlling shares of some banks, too! What??? THAT IS NOT THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNMENT!! THAT"S SOCIALISM!! It makes me SO ANGRY, especially at Bush. At least the majority of Republicans in the House voted AGAINST that awful bill, which the socialist Dems pushed through anyway. I'm proud to say that my Senators and most of the Representatives from my state voted against it. But is wasn't enough.

  4. TedWest says:

    Well, my Senators voted for it, and one of them could be President. And while I was opposed to the bailout, I was not so concerned about it to demand that it not pass. I was more concerned about what pork would be included, and that has come to pass.
    But none of this has anything to do with my feelings about Bush. For one brief moment it looked like he was going to be something other than who he appeared to be when he was running and become a great President.
    Then he signed McCain-Feingold and every spending bill that passed by him, and not only failed to seal the border but barely enforced immigration laws, and it became apparent that he was rudderless ideologically speaking.
    Then he failed to communicate virtually anything, and worst of all, what has he done for the last four years? I mean, name one thing? And our guys might still be dying in Iraq if Bush hadn't been severely pressured into doing something by McCain and others. We've been leaderless since 2003.
    But now, the one exactly right thing he did – take out Hussein, you don't get?

  5. Lexann says:

    Where is it America's job to "take out" Hussein? Bin Laden, sure, he attacked us. So we have the right to go after him and anyone who aids him. But there are Tyrants and Oppressive Leaders galore out there. What about Rawanda and South Africa and Darfur? Are we to step in every time there is a global outrage? Obama thinks so, except in that tiny country of Iraq, of course. I do NOT think it is our business to police the world. Unless it affects us or one of our close allies directly, I think we should stay out!!

  6. TedWest says:

    Am I on Candid Camera? Or being punked? Are you putting me on?

  7. Lexann says:

    Why would you think so?

  8. TedWest says:

    Actually, I was just buying time in the hope that someone would step in and explain this to you because I'm concerned that I can't do it without being offensive – to both of us.

  9. Scio, Scio says:

    Lexann,
    I share your frustration with America's role as the world's policeman. Unfortunately, we simply can't stay at home anymore. Look at the way foreign economies are tanking this week…the world is interconnected in an undeniable way. Our prosperity is linked to the world's prosperity and vice-versa.
    Iraq was a security concern precisely because Saddam was in power, but weak. He had Iran to the East, still smarting from the war in the 80s, and he had world opinion against him. He was in a bad spot, and you know what happens when an animal is backed into a corner.
    He was an animal, that's for sure. What he did to his own people was a string of human rights violations. We had every moral justification to take him out.
    From a political and strategic standpoint, Iraq was a destablizing entity in the Middle East. Saddam was an agitator and enabler of terrorists. That's bad enough. But imagine that Saddam had lived out his days and passed Iraq down to Uday and Qusay. How long would those brutes have lasted against the political intentions of Iran? There may be have been widespread violence, or not, but end result is a stronger Iran, to the detriment of Israel our firm ally, and Jordan our friend.
    For that reason, our security concerns tie us to Iraq. With a stable, democratic Iraq in place, Iranian influence will have a chance to be checked. Israel can ease away from their nuke button, Jordan can continue to offer a picture of a modern, functioning Muslim kingdom, and hopefully encouragement will be given to those in Iran who suffer persecution.
    Iraq is strategy, and stategy is always debatable. But I think the important thing to remember is that our prosperity is tied to the world in a way we can't undo.
    I would love to see regional organizations that would commit to the same operations we now undertake in the name of security. For now, though, it is us.
    Jay Nordlinger of NRO (I know, everything is NR with me) has just gotten back from Iraq and is writing a nice piece here. It doesn't speak exactly to your concerns, but it does mention that Iraq is still an internation effort…we're not in this alone.

  10. Lexann says:

    Ron Paul states it well. See here. I wished I'd voted for him in the primary.

  11. Lexann says:

    Our prosperity is linked to the world's prosperity and vice-versa…But I think the important thing to remember is that our prosperity is tied to the world in a way we can't undo.And yet, our prosperity would be independent of the world if we would do two things: Decrease and control government spending (shocking!), and become energy independent. We could do both easily if we would control Congress. The world has an investment in us because we are (or were) the most economically sound nation in the world. The world wants to invest here, and I welcome that. But we do not have an economic or political obligation to the world!! And we are certainly NOT their police.We had every moral justification to take him out.I disagree with you heartily. If we have a moral justification to take him out, then we must do the same for all vicious dictators and invading countries. But I notice we didn't go to war with Russia when they invaded Georgia. We took down Hussein because we could, as you said, he was weak. We would have a very different situation with a more powerful country.Iraq was a destabilizing entity in the Middle East. Saddam was an agitator and enabler of terrorists. Yeah. Name a middle eastern country that isn't an "agitator and enabler of terrorists"! You know 2 of the known 9/11 terrorists were Jordanian. Aren't they our friends? Even our "ally" Saudi Arabia promotes and supports terrorists. But we aren't invading them. We aren't even placing embargoes on them. Can't do without that oil! (If we were energy independent, we wouldn't have that conflict of interest.)See above link. I really like what Paul says about our global meddling.

  12. TedWest says:

    Lex,
    This is why I didn't want to be involved – I felt it possible that I'd write an irrefutable explanation and you'd reject it and then inject something like a Ron Paul into it (we didn't :meddle" in Iraq, it was imperative)… and then it would deteriorate from there.
    As it now has.
    "If we have a moral justification to take him out, then we must do the same for all vicious dictators and invading countries"
    That is illogical – Justification does not require action, but what's an even bigger problem is that our intervention in Iraq was not predicated on any moral consideration… it's just that it certainly could have been.
    The rest of it I wish you hadn't written, and I further wish that you'd stop now because it's becoming irrational.
    The only thing I want to say emphatically is that we CANNOT achieve energy independence in anyone's lifetime.

  13. Lexann says:

    Ted, I respect you tremendously, but I disagree with you emphatically. If that alone makes me irrational, then perhaps its best to end this discussion.As for energy independence in our lifetime…well, see this. And I won't say anymore on the subject.

  14. TedWest says:

    I try to be very specific (when it matters), so I want to point out that I didn't say that you were irrational, I said that this is becoming irrational. I should say that I often say things that are irrational, you just never see it here ;).
    But I regret even writing what I did. I was both in a hurry and lazy, and I didn't want to prolong this and possibly have to read something that branched off in many directions, none of which could be satisfactorily answered.
    I also feel that the reasons for invading Iraq are self-evident, and I didn't expect to have to be defending them at this late date. Our failure was not in the invasion, it was in the aftermath. I said then, and I've repeated it here, possibly before your time, that I was very concerned that we weren't killing enough of the enemy, and Bush is directly responsible for that, as was his father.
    I realize this may be rekindling the discussion,m but have you considered what things would be like today if Hussein was still in power? I hope you don't think he'd be a check on Iran? Because the it's more likely that the Middle East would be destabilized exponentially, and with that, our and Israel's security..
    Regarding the energy reference I completely agree with everything I read, but what I didn't read (and maybe I missed) was any mention of energy independence?
    And about what I did read, it's also self-evident that we could be a lot better off than we are, but just because all that untapped energy is there doesn't mean that we'll be able to access it. The wackos will do everything they can to slow down and stop development. And alternative energy sources offer little promise for immediate (ten years) benefit. So any belief that self-sufficiency is in our future is wishful thinking, but I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't pursue everything we can.
    And if Obama gets in, think Middle Ages – but with rechargeable batteries.
    I'm sorry I stifled you and dismissed you.

  15. Lexann says:

    I realize this may be rekindling the discussion, but have you
    considered what things would be like today if Hussein was still in
    power?I don't want to go on ad nauseum about this either, as we are obviously not going to agree. And I want you to know that I am very GLAD we took down Hussein, he deserved it. But so do a lot of genocidal tyrants. My issue is, why were we there in the first place?! Was Hussein worst than Khommeni? Was he worse than Ahbenejad? (Yes, I know I'm butchering the spelling of their names.) Was he worse than many of the fanatical radical Islamic terrorist supporting leaders in the middle east? My point is, if we took out Hussein because he was a destabilizing influence in the middle-east, based on that reasoning, we would have to do the same for many other middle-eastern countries. If we took him out because he was a direct Bin Laden supporter, and assisted him in attacking us, and aided him in hiding from us, then I can see that. But so far no evidence (that I've heard) shows that Hussein supported Bin Laden's 9/11 action toward us any more than every other middle-eastern nation that hates America.The wackos will do everything they can to slow down and stop [energy] development.Couldn't agree more.And alternative energy sources offer little promise for immediate (ten years) benefit. So any belief that self-sufficiency is in our future is wishful thinking…Actually, I linked the incorrect article in my above reply. I meant to link this. If the Feds would get off their big butts and remove the counterproductive inane regulations that have been imposed since the 70's, we could be not only energy independent, but have an energy surplus in less than 10 years! It is possible, but Americans MUST make a change in our leadership to do it. And in that sense it may be wishful thinking.And if Obama gets in, think Middle Ages – but with rechargeable batteries.Don't I know it!I'm sorry I stifled you and dismissed you.No need to apologize. I'm thick skinned.

  16. TedWest says:

    You've dragged me kicking and screaming into this, but at least we're getting somewhere in that now I can address some specifics like:
    Was Hussein the worst? Far and away. no one else was even close. Not only that, Hussein was our own specific and unique problem. And Hussein alone controlled the resources he could use to undermine our security, and he had a special desire to do so..
    So you're glad he's gone, good, but you didn't address my question of what things would be like today if he wasn't. Would sanctions still be in place? would the UN still be aiding him in oil-for-food? Would he be funneling money and supplies to subversives elsewhere? Wold he have increased his bounty on Jews? Would he have massacred more of his own people than al Qaeda has? would he have reconstituted his weapons programs, or would we be supervising in the dark forever? Would Libya have dropped it's program? Those are just some of the many considerations.
    "if we took out Hussein because he was a destabilizing influence… based on that reasoning, we would have to do the same for many other middle-eastern countries."
    You're again confusing justification with necessity, not to mention priority. Iraq was so much greater a threat than anyone else that Hussein had to go and now. And I repeat, it wasn't his removal that was the problem, it was the aftermath which Bush the Weak, Lazy, & Indecisive blew. Besides, it was Hussein himself who chose to be invaded. Did you overlook that?
    What was hardest for me to deal with was that you didn't know the reason we acted. It was simply that in the aftermath of 9/11, Hussein had become the biggest and gravest threat overnight. he had the motivation and the means to foment terrorism, and now he had the incentive and the group or groups who could do it, and that could only embolden him.

    I am familiar with the article you referenced and I remember thinking at the time that he's dead right, but there are a lot of "ifs" in the article, and because free marketers will be fought all the way, the forces of capitalism are not going to be unleashed anytime soon, even if the American people want them to be. So I still say that energy independence is a pipe dream, and I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
    Just look at California… Schwarzenegger was considering asking for a bailout? When he's got oil offshore?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s