The Equanimist

Election night recap

Posted in '08 Election, Politics by equanimist on November 5, 2008

Sen. McCain gave a most gracious and magnanimous concession speech. And, though I am one of about five people who voted Nader, I swell with pride in my country and hope for our future: Barack Hussein Obama, a black American with about the worst possible name in history, is President-elect! A million backward racists go to sleep crushed. JOY. Tears well in my eyes.

Advertisements

Vote (fill in blank)!

Posted in '08 Election by equanimist on September 12, 2008

I “misunderestimated” John McCain.

Sarah Palin? SARAH PALIN? “Have you left no sense of decency, sir?”

Sarah Palin is quite possibly the worst kind of person. Even if she hadn’t hired those lobbyists to get those earmarks; even if she actually had been against the bridge-to-nowhere and returned those funds to US taxpayers; even if she had sold that plane on eBay; even if she had demonstrated keen insight and extraordinary leadership ability; even if she actually hasn’t peddled her influence to further a personal agenda; even if she were not a duplicitous narcissistic poster child for a duplicitous narcissistic generation, no one so clearly ignorant, aggressive, mean-spirited and arrogant should ever again wield power much less the US Presidency in these extraordinary times!

US jobs are disappearing. US wages are broadly depressed. Inflation, income inequality, and the rate of foreclosure are staggering. Banks are failing. Credit is tightening. Global climate change threatens to undermine the suitability of the world to human life. And we are to choose between a first-term Senator (whose every foolish decision is a betrayal) and a caricature of a dinosaur (whose relevant experience and demonstrated capacity to understand and address modern US problems are dubious at best) but who has tapped some Podunk imbecile to be a heart-beat from his aged Presidency?

It’s too much to be borne. We must wrestle the reigns back from the inept and corrupt stewards who have co-opted our country. Just, please, don’t let them keep you away from the polls. Go! Votes add up – add up to matching funds – to victory – to change!

A vote for Obama is a vote for the new status quo and will undermine US interests. (Update 1)

Posted in '08 Election by equanimist on July 15, 2008

Whether or not John Edwards or Hillary Clinton would have brought about the kinds of changes that will reinvigorate the US socioeconomy is moot. Why Patrick Leahy and Arlen Specter don’t join forces is beyond me. Still, Barack Obama has instilled no confidence.

If we allow that Tony Rezko is a bad apple; that Mr. Obama had no knowledge of and did not take part in any wrongdoing perpetrated by Mr. Rezko; that he, Mr. Obama, was a victim only of association;

If we set aside the phony (sometimes) accent;

If we let slide allegations of plagiarism because everybody does it;

If we disregard statements made by Jeremiah Wright, Mr. Obama’s pastor of 20 years;

If we discount the leanings of his now-former church in Chicago;

If we dismiss his own omission of Israel (see the first Democratic debate) on a long list of America’s most important allies around the world;

If we set aside the fact that Mr. Obama can claim little substantive legislation in his name; that his supporters are hard pressed to cite such; and that he is very young for the Office;

And, finally, if we forget that he supports gimmicky legislation like windfall profits taxes,

What have we got left? “Change we can believe in.”

Mr. Obama and his supporters insist that he is a different kind of politician who will bring about “real” change as President, while they rail against “the old” politics. Mr. Obama, they cry, will stand up for what is right and right our course. It is difficult to assess the veracity of these types of claims, but nothing suggests that there is any reason to think he will – quite the contrary.

Having faced only two important policy decisions since becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee (viz., public financing and telecom immunity), Mr. Obama has made two bad choices. He first broke his pledge to work with his political opponent to agree on public financing while he and his minions decried the system. He then voted in favor of legislation that grants retroactive legal immunity to telecommunications companies who took part in illegal domestic surveillance [provided that these telecoms produce documentation that leads a judge to believe that ‘they’ (i.e. responsible parties within the telecoms) believed that they were acting within the law at the time that they broke the law, (much like criminals whose cult leaders told them it was okay and soldiers who were only acting on orders)] but not before he, Mr. Obama, voted to strip this portion of the legislation from the bill! That is, Mr. Obama not only voted for this very flawed (if not illegal) legislation, but he did so despite the fact that he knew it was the wrong thing to do. Why? To gain votes? To project himself as hard on terror? To appeal to the “center”?

Does a pattern emerge from all this? This isn’t even politics as usual. This is extraordinary. Mr. Obama is an extraordinary politician who would lull us with a Siren song, and we docile would go gently into the night.