Blogito, Ergo Sum
by Gregg Calkins
14 December 2010, a Tuesday
A loused-up day on the news front as life keeps interfering with blogging. December is not a good month for me and this year seems to be more confused than eveer.
Well, at least I’m not Obama.
I’m not the armed robber who got a million and a half from the Bellagio, either...how did he DO that? Did the place fail to contribute to Harry’s reelection campaign?
Many years ago, when I was married to Sandra, her best friend was married to a cop in an Oregon city. They came down to visit us one year and we all went to Reno to gamble and gambol. He was out of uniform and out of his jurisdiction but decided to carry his off-duty piece, anyhow, although none of us knew it. He had it tucked inside of his jacket which he had folded up and was carrying in his arms when all of a sudden, right in the middle of the crowded casino, he dropped the pistol on the floor! I mean, there it was, in plain sight, a snub-nose .38 revolver. He bent down quickly and scooped it up. I waited for the reaction but...none came. No one apparently noticed, in all the crowd, and if there were cameras they didn’t see it, either. It was a complete non-event.
We laughed, after we got out of there and out of trouble, but it did make me wonder. How many more pistols were there inside that place?
I laughed at this WaPo item:
Party has yet to win over American people, who now trust Obama marginally more than the GOP to deal with the country's problems, poll finds.
They have spun it so the middle-class tax cuts belong to Barry, the tax-cuts for the wealthy belong to Bush. Actually they were all part of the original package and the majority Democrats are going to have to endorse both while appearing to do otherwise. If they do. But I think that they will.
One I won’t read:
Milbank: Freshman GOP lawmakers, such as Kristi Noem, are already cozying up to the special interests the Tea Party deplores.
Lobbyists are no more evil than are lawyers...oops...and all of us have special interests, every one of us. We belong to groups we no longer even think about and maybe don’t even formally participate any more, but our interests are there just the same. And there’s nothing wrong with that.
Same with earmarks. Our legislators are SUPPOSED to spend our tax money, that’s their job. As long as earmarks are completely identified and disclosed then there’s nothing wrong with them. It’s the unidentified ones added one minute before the bill is signed that are the problem, and they all know that as well as we do. Better, maybe.
Sometimes when you read the spin you get the idea that a few of the dorks actually believe what they are writing, like
this one:Right now, Congress is debating the best way to address tax relief for American families - a critical question as our country continues to recover from the recession. House Democrats are committed to getting the best possible deal for taxpayers and ensuring that taxes on working families don't go up on Jan. 1. But we also don't think it's fiscally responsible or fair to provide a tax-cut bonanza to super-rich estates.
Senate Republicans have made it clear they are willing to raise taxes this January on middle-class Americans unless they get tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires - despite the fact that a tax hike on the middle class could slow an already anemic economic recovery. Two weeks ago, in the face of overwhelming Republican opposition, the House passed legislation that would cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans while resetting rates for the top 2 percent to their levels under President Bill Clinton. Unfortunately, Democrats could not overcome Republican opposition in the Senate. We were at a stalemate.
Of course, the bill, which was President Bush’s, did NOT cut taxes for 98 percent of Americans, all it did was retain HIS tax cuts. Oh. Him. No, the Democrats want credit for it now. Oh, well, this numbnuts is really against cutting inheritance taxes...he really does not like the idea that some people who worked hard and saved their money should be allowed to pass it on and do what they want with it. In his book, once you die all of your property reverts to the state, not your heirs, and they get whatever the state decides to allow them to keep.
I have no dog in this hunt, but I think once you have earned your money and paid taxes on it then after that it is yours to do with what you will. If you want to leave it to your kids that’s your choice, not up to the government to decide. You are talking about nothing but the lowest politics of envy here,
Speaking of which...
THE LEAGUE | New England reclaims position as most dominant team in NFL despite a roster devoid of superstars beyond QB Tom Brady.
Maybe he’s enough? Or could it be Bill Belichick, the coach?
Wes Pruden makes me smile broadly at this one:What can you do with a good ol' boy like Bubba? He only does what Bubba does. You probably shouldn't blame a distracted and overwhelmed Barack Obama, either. But that was a remarkable show the two presidents put on at the White House the other day.
No one remembered such a remarkable abdication of authority since Edward VIII, as goofy as Alfred E. Neuman, gave up a throne, several palaces and the royal grouse hunts to keep at his side "the woman I love." Or at least since Johnny Carson stepped aside for Jay Leno.
I always wondered about the King. That was before I met Carol, of course. I like the joke about the two good ol’ boys sharing a drink and one says he’s thinking of divorcing his wife because she hasn’t talked to him in six months now. His friend says he should think that over...a woman like that is hard to find,
The president — the black one — seemed a little befuddled the other day when the other president — the white one — took control of an impromptu press conference at the White House. Mr. Obama got Bubba's endorsement of his tax compromise with the Republicans, but at considerable cost. The president was a man caught between two fires, one kindled by the pushy visitor in the briefing room and the other in the parlor, and a husband, even a presidential husband, knows how to calibrate the heat and knows better than to keep an impatient wife with a roast in the oven waiting when guests are arriving for supper. ...
The ineptitude of the Obama White House, revealed piece by piece over the months, was at last writ large enough for all to see. Could anyone imagine Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan allowing a former president to come into his house and take over a press conference? Could anyone imagine even Jimmy Carter deferring to such an interloper?
I had to chuckle...no, not even Jimmy Carter.
Good ol' boys, even former presidents, nearly always remember their Southern manners, and Bubba tried to give the illusion of nibbling at a slice of humble pie. "So, for whatever it's worth," he said, "that's what I think." Mr. Obama played the grateful inexperienced bridegroom inviting the ex-husband along to help on the honeymoon. "It's worth a lot," he said.
Reminds me of the conversations on Two and a Half Men between Alan and his ex-wife’s new husband, discussing her sexual behavior.
Then he said he had to leave for Michelle's party, and Bubba had the place for himself. "I feel awkward being here," he told the president, "and now you're going to leave me here all by myself." For the next half-hour he was the real president again, taking questions and dispensing wit and bonhomie. It was great theater, and a good time was had by all. But you can bet men are taking notes in Tehran and Pyongyang, Beijing and other capitals where the shrewd and unforgiving are forever looking for signs of weariness, weakness and impotence.
They certainly found it. Clinton, of course, had he actually been a friend, should have called it quits when Obama said he had to leave. Otherwise Obama should have simply thanked him and ended the press conference then and there. He really blew that one.
I had to laugh at the truth unwittingly revealed by
Katrina vanden Huevel:Obama has reinforced the notion, not by compromise but by relative silence, that we should fear changing tax rates in a time of economic crisis, even when economists of all stripes tell us that tax cuts for the wealthy offer extraordinary cost and zero benefit to the nation. He speaks most passionately not while lambasting a Republican Party that would drown the middle class on behalf of the wealthy, but when criticizing the left for not offering support at a time when he doesn't deserve it. Because he rightly expects the worst from the far right, he seems to have lost his sense of outrage toward them. The left, in turn, receives his overcharged and misplaced anger - suggesting an equivalence between the two when, in truth, there is none.
On alternate weeks she complains about the Republican lack of bipartisanship. How thick is her head, one wonders in amazement.