Post #188
Subject: George W. Bush: Ya is Fired! Pt. III
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
By Pat Buchanan
November 4, 2008
[Why did I chose this column -- “But Where Did Bush Go Wrong?” -- posted on election day by Pat Buchanan as another post-mortem on John McCain’s presidential bid instead of Pat’s “Why Did McCain Lose?” Quite simply, Pat’s post-mortem was a thinly-veiled call for more racism and hatred. Hopefully, we are beyond that.]
After losing control of the Senate and 30 House seats in 2006, the GOP is bracing for losses of six to nine in the Senate, and two dozen to three dozen additional seats in the House.
If the party "were a dog food," says Rep. Tom Davis, "they would take us off the shelf."
[George W.] Bush's approval is 25 percent. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton left office with ratings more than twice as high.
But while John McCain and others have deplored the Bush failures, what, exactly, did he do wrong?
What were the policy blunders to which Republicans vehemently objected at the time?
That Bush is a Big Government Republican is undeniable. His two great social spending initiatives, prescription drug benefits for seniors under Medicare and No Child Left Behind, so testify.But how many Republicans opposed Bush on these initiatives? How many have called for the abolition of either program, or for raising payroll taxes to pay for prescription drugs?
[“Big Government Republican” ought to be a contradiction in terms.]
McCain now supports the Bush judges and justices and the Bush tax cuts, as do almost all Republicans.
True, Bush sought amnesty for illegal aliens and backs the free-trade globalism that exported our manufacturing base and 3 million to 4 million jobs. But McCain is even more enthusiastic about both.
Does the party dissent on free trade and mass immigration?
Two-thirds of Americans now believe the Iraq war a mistake. Yet, all but a few Republicans backed the war. At the time of "Mission Accomplished!" in May 2003, the nation gave Bush a 90 percent approval rating, as his father had after Desert Storm.
What turned America against the war was not the decision to invade, oust Saddam, destroy the weapons of mass destruction and depart, but the long, bloody slog, the five-year war, with nearly 5,000 dead, that Iraq became. It was not the lightning war of Tommy Franks, with journalists riding tanks into Baghdad, that soured America, but the unanticipated duration and cost of the war.
Yet, Republicans still believe that the war was not a mistake, only mishandled. And now that Gen. Petraeus got it right in Iraq, they say, we should pursue the Petraeus policy in Afghanistan.
[Add me to the ever-growing list of those who question our commitment in Afghanistan. What exactly did Petraeus do in Iraq, and why will that work in Afghanistan? Let’s find out BEFORE we “surge” in Afghanistan, huh?]
How many Republicans have repudiated the Bush Doctrine that got us into Iraq - the belief that only by making the world democratic can we keep America secure and free? Americans no longer believe that, if ever they did. And history proves them right. For Iraq has never been democratic, and America has always been free.
Yet, the Republican Party has never renounced the Bush Doctrine.
Indeed, it is being applied today in Afghanistan.
That war, too, after we failed at Tora Bora to capture or kill bin Laden, has become a long slog to create a democratic Afghanistan, which, like a democratic Iraq, has never before existed.
In Afghanistan, we are entering the eighth year of war with victory further away than ever. The Taliban grows stronger. U.S. casualties are surging. Opium exports are breaking records. Our NATO allies grow weary. Even the Brits are talking of reconciliation with the Taliban, perhaps accepting a dictator.
These two wars helped to cripple the Bush presidency and end the GOP ascendancy. Yet, at the highest levels of the party, one hears no serious questioning of the ideology that produced these wars. McCain has pledged to stay in Iraq until "victory" and send 10,000 more troops to Afghanistan.
Nor have Republicans objected to the U.S. air strikes that have killed hundreds of Afghans, or the Predator strikes that have inflamed Pakistan or the helicopter raid into Syria that humiliated Damascus and enraged the population. If Republicans disagree with these policies and actions, their voices are muted.
Bush is for facing down Russia and bringing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. Does any Republican disagree? For McCain is more hawkish than Bush when it come to Moscow.
The party says it is losing because the economy went south. But who caused that? Was it not because Republicans colluded with Democrats in pushing "affordable housing," subprime mortgages, for folks who could not afford houses?
Is the GOP prepared to demand tough terms for home loans?
Was it not GOP presidents who appointed the Fed chairmen who pumped up the money supply and created the bubble? How many Republicans objected to the easy money when the going was good?
The country wishes to be rid of the Bush policies and the Bush presidency. But where does the Republican Party think Bush went wrong, other than to be asleep at the wheel during Katrina?
The GOP needs to confront the truth: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them.
[It is worth repeating: The failure of the Bush presidency lies not in a failed execution of policy but in the policies themselves and the neoconservative ideology that informed them.]
Yet, still, the party remains in denial, refusing to come to terms with the causes of its misfortune. One expects they will be given the time and opportunity for reflection soon.
"The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars but in ourselves."
Friday, November 28, 2008
Friday, November 21, 2008
Post #187
Subject: George W. Bush: Ya is Fired! Pt. II
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
By George Will
November 16, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Conservatism's current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket's end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government -- verily, "socialism" -- would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would "spread the wealth around."
[All taxes -- and indeed tax cuts -- “spread the wealth.” The only question is, to whom? George W. Bush got over a trillion dollars in tax cuts. How much did ya get? I’m still waiting for those Ronald Reagan tax cuts to “trickle down” to me…. :p]
America can't have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans -- whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American people-cum-corporations who farm -- and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called "the private sector" has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be "spread around."
[Whatever happened to, the government that governs least, governs best?]
The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well.
[Who assured that?]
Probably as temporary as New York City's rent controls, which were born as emergency responses to the Second World War, and which are still distorting the city's housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10.
The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution -- the federal government -- will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets allocate resources, or government -- meaning politics -- allocates them. Now that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the institution they trust least -- Congress -- will pony up $1 trillion and then passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into the pie? Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate "socially responsible" spending -- an infinitely elastic term -- by the favored companies.
Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has approved, but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and saying, "Please, sir, I want some more."
McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that such spreading is most what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Sugar import quotas cost the American people approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. The few thousand sugar producers on whom billions are thereby conferred do notice and are grateful to the government that bilks the many for the enrichment of the few.
Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious -- destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government.
[Aaahhh, this is where ‘conservatives’ really need to do a re-think: If taxes slow wealth creation -- and tax cuts create wealth, well, how are things today? And leave the “morally dubious” charge to church.]
But if conservatives call all such spreading by government "socialism," that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain's health care plan depended.
Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker's intelligence. And falsely shouting "socialism!" in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.
In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking -- bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.
[Simply, ‘conservatives’ need to admit their complicity in the victory of BIG government. Then, perhaps “I believe in what Ronald Reagan believed in” will not sound so shallow -- dishonest. And who’s gonna want a dishonest party in charge!?! :p]
As for the president-elect, he promises to change Washington. He will, by making matters worse. He will intensify rent-seeking by finding new ways -- this will not be easy -- to expand, even more than the current administration has, government's influence on spreading the wealth around.
[Spreading-the-wealth to the middle class sounds better than spreading the wealth to the rich. I’m against spreading the wealth -- well, much of it. But, after eight years of favoring the rich -- to no good, it seems only fair to favor the middle class.]
Subject: George W. Bush: Ya is Fired! Pt. II
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
By George Will
November 16, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Conservatism's current intellectual chaos reverberated in the Republican ticket's end-of-campaign crescendo of surreal warnings that big government -- verily, "socialism" -- would impend were Democrats elected. John McCain and Sarah Palin experienced this epiphany when Barack Obama told a Toledo plumber that he would "spread the wealth around."
[All taxes -- and indeed tax cuts -- “spread the wealth.” The only question is, to whom? George W. Bush got over a trillion dollars in tax cuts. How much did ya get? I’m still waiting for those Ronald Reagan tax cuts to “trickle down” to me…. :p]
America can't have that, exclaimed the Republican ticket while Republicans -- whose prescription drug entitlement is the largest expansion of the welfare state since President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society gave birth to Medicare in 1965; a majority of whom in Congress supported a lavish farm bill at a time of record profits for the less than 2 percent of the American people-cum-corporations who farm -- and their administration were partially nationalizing the banking system, putting Detroit on the dole and looking around to see if some bit of what is smilingly called "the private sector" has been inadvertently left off the ever-expanding list of entities eligible for a bailout from the $1 trillion or so that is to be "spread around."
[Whatever happened to, the government that governs least, governs best?]
The seepage of government into everywhere is, we are assured, to be temporary and nonpolitical. Well.
[Who assured that?]
Probably as temporary as New York City's rent controls, which were born as emergency responses to the Second World War, and which are still distorting the city's housing market. The Depression, which FDR failed to end but which Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor did end, was the excuse for agriculture subsidies that have lived past three score years and 10.
The distribution of a trillion dollars by a political institution -- the federal government -- will be nonpolitical? How could it be? Either markets allocate resources, or government -- meaning politics -- allocates them. Now that distrust of markets is high, Americans are supposed to believe that the institution they trust least -- Congress -- will pony up $1 trillion and then passively recede, never putting its 10 thumbs, like a manic Jack Horner, into the pie? Surely Congress will direct the executive branch to show compassion for this, that and the other industry. And it will mandate "socially responsible" spending -- an infinitely elastic term -- by the favored companies.
Detroit has not yet started spending the $25 billion that Congress has approved, but already is, like Oliver Twist, holding out its porridge bowl and saying, "Please, sir, I want some more."
McCain and Palin, plucky foes of spreading the wealth, must have known that such spreading is most what Washington does. Here, the Constitution is an afterthought; the supreme law of the land is the principle of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs. Sugar import quotas cost the American people approximately $2 billion a year, but that sum is siphoned from 300 million consumers in small, hidden increments that are not noticed. The few thousand sugar producers on whom billions are thereby conferred do notice and are grateful to the government that bilks the many for the enrichment of the few.
Conservatives rightly think, or once did, that much, indeed most, government spreading of wealth is economically destructive and morally dubious -- destructive because, by directing capital to suboptimum uses, it slows wealth creation; morally dubious because the wealth being spread belongs to those who created it, not government.
[Aaahhh, this is where ‘conservatives’ really need to do a re-think: If taxes slow wealth creation -- and tax cuts create wealth, well, how are things today? And leave the “morally dubious” charge to church.]
But if conservatives call all such spreading by government "socialism," that becomes a classification that no longer classifies: It includes almost everything, including the refundable tax credit on which McCain's health care plan depended.
Hyperbole is not harmless; careless language bewitches the speaker's intelligence. And falsely shouting "socialism!" in a crowded theater such as Washington causes an epidemic of yawning. This is the only major industrial society that has never had a large socialist party ideologically, meaning candidly, committed to redistribution of wealth. This is partly because Americans are an aspirational, not an envious people. It is also because the socialism we do have is the surreptitious socialism of the strong, e.g. sugar producers represented by their Washington hirelings.
In America, socialism is un-American. Instead, Americans merely do rent-seeking -- bending government for the benefit of private factions. The difference is in degree, including the degree of candor. The rehabilitation of conservatism cannot begin until conservatives are candid about their complicity in what government has become.
[Simply, ‘conservatives’ need to admit their complicity in the victory of BIG government. Then, perhaps “I believe in what Ronald Reagan believed in” will not sound so shallow -- dishonest. And who’s gonna want a dishonest party in charge!?! :p]
As for the president-elect, he promises to change Washington. He will, by making matters worse. He will intensify rent-seeking by finding new ways -- this will not be easy -- to expand, even more than the current administration has, government's influence on spreading the wealth around.
[Spreading-the-wealth to the middle class sounds better than spreading the wealth to the rich. I’m against spreading the wealth -- well, much of it. But, after eight years of favoring the rich -- to no good, it seems only fair to favor the middle class.]
Friday, November 14, 2008
Post #186
Subject: George W. Bush: Ya is Fired!
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
By Charles Krauthammer
November 07, 2008
WASHINGTON -- In my previous life, I witnessed far more difficult postmortems. This one is easy. The patient was fatally stricken on Sept. 15 -- caught in the rubble when the roof fell in (at Lehman Brothers, according to the police report) -- although he did linger until his final, rather quiet demise on Nov. 4.
In the excitement and decisiveness of Barack Obama's victory, we forget that in the first weeks of September, John McCain was actually ahead. Then Lehman collapsed, and the financial system went off a cliff.
This was not just a meltdown but a panic. For an agonizing few days, there was a collapse of faith in the entire financial system -- a run on banks, panicky money-market withdrawals, flights to safety, the impulse to hide one's savings under a mattress.
This did not just have the obvious effect of turning people against the incumbent party, however great or tenuous its responsibility for the crisis. It had the more profound effect of making people seek shelter in government.
After all, if even Goldman Sachs was getting government protection, why not you? And offering the comfort and safety of government is the Democratic Party's vocation. With a Republican White House having partially nationalized the banks and just about everything else, McCain's final anti-Obama maneuver -- Joe the Plumber spread-the-wealth charges of socialism -- became almost comical.
[Which is more funny? Joe not knowing what socialism is -- nationalizing banks, farms and soon-to-be health care IS socialism -- or talking dismissively of spread-the-wealth when he himself had received government benefits twice during his life?]
We don't yet appreciate how unprecedented were the events of September and October. We have never had a full-fledged financial panic in the middle of a presidential campaign. Consider. If the S&P were to close at the end of the year where it did on Election Day, it will have suffered this year its steepest drop since 1937. That is 71 years.
At the same time, the economy had suffered nine consecutive months of job losses. Considering the carnage to both capital and labor (which covers just about everybody), even a Ronald Reagan could not have survived. The fact that John McCain got 46 percent of the electorate when 75 percent said the country was going in the wrong direction is quite remarkable.
[“Frightening” is the word I’d use.]
This is not to say that McCain made no errors. His suspension of the campaign during the economic meltdown was a long shot that not only failed, it created the McCain-the-erratic meme that deeply undermined his huge advantage over Obama in perception of leadership.
The choice of Sarah Palin was also a mistake. I'm talking here about its political effects, not the sideshow psychodrama of feminist rage and elite loathing that had little to do with politics and everything to do with cultural prejudices, resentments and affectations.
[Sarah Palin scared the voters she was supposed to attract -- the Hillary voters. Put a dress on Hermann Georing, and ya still have a Nazi! :p To think that women will vote for a dress, any dress, is sexist.]
Palin was a mistake ("near suicidal," I wrote on the day of her selection) because she completely undercut McCain's principal case against Obama: his inexperience and unreadiness to lead. And her nomination not only intellectually undermined the readiness argument. It changed the election dynamic by shifting attention, for days on end, to Palin's preparedness, fitness and experience -- and away from Obama's.
[Oh, yes, Sarah Palin fired up ‘the base,’ but ‘the base’ is dwindling. Do the Republicans really want to appease ‘that base’ any more?]
McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning. It defied logic for the incumbent party candidate to try to take "change" away from the opposition. Election Day exit polls bore that out with a vengeance. Voters for whom change was the most important issue went 89-to-9 for Obama.
Which is not to say that Obama did not run a brilliant general election campaign. He did. In its tactically perfect minimalism, it was as well conceived and well executed as the electrifying, highflying, magic carpet ride of his primary victory. By the time of his Denver convention, Obama understood that he had to dispense with the magic and make himself kitchen-table real, accessible and, above all, reassuring. He did that. And when the economic tsunami hit, he understood that all he had to do was get out of the way. He did that too.
[Yes, if Barak Obama is truly behind half of the stuff he’s accused of -- from the economic meltdown to fathering Sarah Palin’s infant -- then, my Gawd, that’s the President for me! :p]
With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.
But before our old soldier fades away, it is worth acknowledging that McCain ran a valiant race against impossible odds. He will be -- he should be -- remembered as the most worthy presidential nominee ever to be denied the prize.
[Aaahhh, there, Charles, is where you are missing the point: John McCain was not a conservative and did not deserve to be the nominee of the conservative party. But, then, again, most Republicans are not conservative either.]
[Remember during the second debate when McCain kept hitting Barak Obama for his ‘government will do this’ and ‘government will do that’ answers? Then, McCain said that his own idea was for the government to buy bad mortgages.]
[BIG government has won. History has taken another step to the left. Republicans need to forget the Sarah Palin knee-jerk wing and concentrate on individual rights -- civil liberties -- within the BIG government framework. Or become irrelevant.]
Subject: George W. Bush: Ya is Fired!
My responses and additions – in [brackets]….
By Charles Krauthammer
November 07, 2008
WASHINGTON -- In my previous life, I witnessed far more difficult postmortems. This one is easy. The patient was fatally stricken on Sept. 15 -- caught in the rubble when the roof fell in (at Lehman Brothers, according to the police report) -- although he did linger until his final, rather quiet demise on Nov. 4.
In the excitement and decisiveness of Barack Obama's victory, we forget that in the first weeks of September, John McCain was actually ahead. Then Lehman collapsed, and the financial system went off a cliff.
This was not just a meltdown but a panic. For an agonizing few days, there was a collapse of faith in the entire financial system -- a run on banks, panicky money-market withdrawals, flights to safety, the impulse to hide one's savings under a mattress.
This did not just have the obvious effect of turning people against the incumbent party, however great or tenuous its responsibility for the crisis. It had the more profound effect of making people seek shelter in government.
After all, if even Goldman Sachs was getting government protection, why not you? And offering the comfort and safety of government is the Democratic Party's vocation. With a Republican White House having partially nationalized the banks and just about everything else, McCain's final anti-Obama maneuver -- Joe the Plumber spread-the-wealth charges of socialism -- became almost comical.
[Which is more funny? Joe not knowing what socialism is -- nationalizing banks, farms and soon-to-be health care IS socialism -- or talking dismissively of spread-the-wealth when he himself had received government benefits twice during his life?]
We don't yet appreciate how unprecedented were the events of September and October. We have never had a full-fledged financial panic in the middle of a presidential campaign. Consider. If the S&P were to close at the end of the year where it did on Election Day, it will have suffered this year its steepest drop since 1937. That is 71 years.
At the same time, the economy had suffered nine consecutive months of job losses. Considering the carnage to both capital and labor (which covers just about everybody), even a Ronald Reagan could not have survived. The fact that John McCain got 46 percent of the electorate when 75 percent said the country was going in the wrong direction is quite remarkable.
[“Frightening” is the word I’d use.]
This is not to say that McCain made no errors. His suspension of the campaign during the economic meltdown was a long shot that not only failed, it created the McCain-the-erratic meme that deeply undermined his huge advantage over Obama in perception of leadership.
The choice of Sarah Palin was also a mistake. I'm talking here about its political effects, not the sideshow psychodrama of feminist rage and elite loathing that had little to do with politics and everything to do with cultural prejudices, resentments and affectations.
[Sarah Palin scared the voters she was supposed to attract -- the Hillary voters. Put a dress on Hermann Georing, and ya still have a Nazi! :p To think that women will vote for a dress, any dress, is sexist.]
Palin was a mistake ("near suicidal," I wrote on the day of her selection) because she completely undercut McCain's principal case against Obama: his inexperience and unreadiness to lead. And her nomination not only intellectually undermined the readiness argument. It changed the election dynamic by shifting attention, for days on end, to Palin's preparedness, fitness and experience -- and away from Obama's.
[Oh, yes, Sarah Palin fired up ‘the base,’ but ‘the base’ is dwindling. Do the Republicans really want to appease ‘that base’ any more?]
McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning. It defied logic for the incumbent party candidate to try to take "change" away from the opposition. Election Day exit polls bore that out with a vengeance. Voters for whom change was the most important issue went 89-to-9 for Obama.
Which is not to say that Obama did not run a brilliant general election campaign. He did. In its tactically perfect minimalism, it was as well conceived and well executed as the electrifying, highflying, magic carpet ride of his primary victory. By the time of his Denver convention, Obama understood that he had to dispense with the magic and make himself kitchen-table real, accessible and, above all, reassuring. He did that. And when the economic tsunami hit, he understood that all he had to do was get out of the way. He did that too.
[Yes, if Barak Obama is truly behind half of the stuff he’s accused of -- from the economic meltdown to fathering Sarah Palin’s infant -- then, my Gawd, that’s the President for me! :p]
With him we get a president with the political intelligence of a Bill Clinton harnessed to the steely self-discipline of a Vladimir Putin. (I say this admiringly.) With these qualities, Obama will now bestride the political stage as largely as did Reagan.
But before our old soldier fades away, it is worth acknowledging that McCain ran a valiant race against impossible odds. He will be -- he should be -- remembered as the most worthy presidential nominee ever to be denied the prize.
[Aaahhh, there, Charles, is where you are missing the point: John McCain was not a conservative and did not deserve to be the nominee of the conservative party. But, then, again, most Republicans are not conservative either.]
[Remember during the second debate when McCain kept hitting Barak Obama for his ‘government will do this’ and ‘government will do that’ answers? Then, McCain said that his own idea was for the government to buy bad mortgages.]
[BIG government has won. History has taken another step to the left. Republicans need to forget the Sarah Palin knee-jerk wing and concentrate on individual rights -- civil liberties -- within the BIG government framework. Or become irrelevant.]
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Post #185
Subject: Lest we forget
My paternal grandfather was a WW I vet and was gassed by the Germans. He suffered breathing problems in 'is later years. WW I, ya know, is why we have Vets' Day when we do....
Thanks to an e-pal for the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTWtdnDjmDI
Subject: Lest we forget
My paternal grandfather was a WW I vet and was gassed by the Germans. He suffered breathing problems in 'is later years. WW I, ya know, is why we have Vets' Day when we do....
Thanks to an e-pal for the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTWtdnDjmDI
Friday, November 07, 2008
Post #184
Subject: Obama Wins!
I pegged Barack Obama -- the smooth black man who opposed the Iraq War -- as the 2008 Democratic candidate back in 2004 after his speech at that years convention. But I was sure he'd never win.
Boy, I've learned my lesson: Never underestimate the power of George W. Bush to mess things up! :p
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations
Obama can lead. Can we follow? Yes, we can!!
Subject: Obama Wins!
I pegged Barack Obama -- the smooth black man who opposed the Iraq War -- as the 2008 Democratic candidate back in 2004 after his speech at that years convention. But I was sure he'd never win.
Boy, I've learned my lesson: Never underestimate the power of George W. Bush to mess things up! :p
http://www.theonion.com/content/news_briefs/black_man_given_nations
Obama can lead. Can we follow? Yes, we can!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)