Fairy Tales
Posted February 1st, 2008 by Da King
The number of lawyers seeking the Democratic presidential nomination has been reduced from three to two. The ambulance chasing lawyer is out. The coattail riding lawyer and the civil rights lawyer remain. The coattail rider is the frontrunner for the moment, and has the edge in experience, having both 35 years of coattail riding plus seven years in the Senate. The civil rights lawyer has only three years in the Senate, but at least he didn't earn his Senate seat because of his last name, like the coattail rider did. He earned it the old-fashioned way (his primary opponent, who was leading, self-destructed amid allegations of domestic abuse, and his opponent in the general election withdrew due to a sex scandal, leaving him virtually unopposed, with Alan Keyes jumping in as 11th hour opposition with no chance of winning). The Democratic party had tagged the civil rights lawyer for greatness even before he won his Senate seat by default however, by making him the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. He is the anointed candidate of change, and the future of the Democratic party. The Kennedy family has endorsed him, and Caroline Kennedy said he reminds her of her father, JFK. Visions of a new Camelot are dancing in Democratic heads. Never mind that Caroline also said John F. Kerry reminded her of her father back in 2004 (Must be the initials in the name, because I can't think of any other resemblence there).
All this talk of change, the future, Camelot, and anointing has the coattail rider hopping mad, because, dammit, this was supposed to be HER year, she was supposed to be the anointee, and, double dammit, SHE'S A WOMAN, which gives her street cred in Democratic Identity Politics (DIP). However, in an ironic twist of cruel fate for the coattail rider, the civil rights lawyer is black, giving him even MORE street cred in DIP world. The ambulance chasing lawyer was a mere third wheel, with no DIP cred whatsoever. No wonder he was so angry.
The coattail rider pulled out her 'Big Gun' (pun intended) - the esteemed, venerable, beloved in the Democratic party, lecherous, adulterous, sexual abuser, the ex-president. The Big Gun called the civil rights lawyer's position on Iraq a "fairy tale", which was immediately denounced as a racist remark (don't ask me to explain how that was allegedly racist. This is the Democratic party. Nothing makes sense here. The Big Gun did make later remarks that were racially motivated, though). Apparently, the Big Gun didn't notice his wife the coattail rider's position on Iraq was much more of a fairy tale than that of her opponent. The coattail rider literally said that when she voted in favor of a resolution called the AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ, she didn't know that meant it was an AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE IN IRAQ. She claimed she thought she was only voting for weapons inspectors to finish their job. Seriously. This is the woman Democrats call 'the smartest woman in the world'. And, SHE'S THE FRONTRUNNER ! Like I said, don't expect this stuff to make sense, it's the Democrats. Being a boldfaced liar is usually an asset. It mostly worked for the Big Gun, until a certain blue dress appeared…..
But I digress. Back on topic, there is a new fairy tale being tossed around by the Democrats regarding Iraq, and I've heard both the coattail rider and the civil rights lawyer mention it, so it must have been cooked up over at DIP headquarters, maybe at the DNC by Howie Dean. This fantasy seems too silly for even James Carville to have cooked up. The fairy tale goes like this : The Iraqis, knowing that either the coattail rider or the civil rights lawyer could be the next president of the USA, and would remove US troops, are behaving better and making progress, because they know their time for depending on the USA is running out.
This master(batory) stroke of demented and corrupt genius accomplishes a number of things for the Democrats: it is used to nullify the results of the surge, which the Democrats were uniformly wrong about; it lays more groundwork for pulling out of Iraq; it provides justification for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The Dems are heavily invested in defeat, because they must prove Bush wrong at all costs. If you haven't noticed, every time one benchmark of success is met in Iraq, and several have been met recently, the Democrats move onto the next one as proof of american failure. Now, I don't want to paint the Iraq picture as a bowl of cherries here, but shouldn't we at least expect a little basic honesty from our leading presidential candidates on one of biggest issues going, instead of this pure fiction and spin for political gain ? Shouldn't we at least expect our leading presidential candidates to WANT america to succeed ? At the VERY LEAST ???
February 1st, 2008 at 10:13 am
King, that is a very entertaining post on a number of accounts. I'm not sure which Ds you talk to, but in my circle, there's a lot of problems with who you think our front runner is. You and I both know she can't win, leaving Mr. Obama as our only hope. Which goes back to a point about finding qualified people to run for President, but that's another discussion. Anyway, I did take some offense at your use of masterbatory….but since I am a godless Dim, I will defend your right to say it!
February 1st, 2008 at 10:55 am
da truth,
That's why I called Hillary the frontrunner for the moment. I think more and more Dems may, like you, realize that Obama is their best chance come november. The Republicans are dying to run against Hillary. They've been planning it for years. Obama would be quite a curveball for them, and a more formidable foe, who could pull votes from across all the demographic and political barriers, especially if the Republicans are dumb enough to nominate McCain. Even Republicans and conservatives would defect to vote against McCain. I wrote that 'Dear Democrats' post to urge you guys to nominate Obama. I'm sick to death of the Clintons. Now, any tips you might have for me on how I can convince Obama to become less liberal would be greatly appreciated. That's his only flaw.
You know, it's funny, but regarding your remark about "finding qualified people to run for President", I think from an objective viewpoint, Obama is the very least qualified person left on either side of the aisle. Everyone else has far more experience.
As for the off-color remark, sorry, but it fit the thought so well that I just couldn't resist. What offended me was the idea of the Democratic presidential wannabes taking credit for the success surrounding the surge, when they deserve absolutely none. Less than none, actually. They were a hindrance.
And I don't think you're a 'godless Dim' (although there are a couple hanging around here, lol). You're okay in my book. I just have to convert you to my way of thinking, along with millions and millions of others
February 1st, 2008 at 10:59 am
The thought that Democrats are invested in defeat is just so ridiculous….it's actually not worthy of comment.
Obama spoke last night to this "Dems want America to lose in Iraq" foolishness.
You and others have bought in to the neo-cons lies and spin.
I know that when conservatives get all invested in the bloodshed of foreigners…..the "rightness" of it…you know, because of America's exceptionalism….it's hard to comprehend objective truth.
There's nothing to "win" in Iraq. Saddam is gone. The only reason to base our military permanently there is the imperialism reason.
Conservatives, by using "Dems want us to lose" nonsense, are actually cheering for more pre-emptive wars of choice, empire building…..controlling the world.
America=good
Therefore, whatever we do is good.
Corollary: Anyone who disagrees is bad and wants us to lose.
That's all this discussion is really about.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:24 pm
King, I couldn't agree with you more on the whole Obama/Clinton thing. The real problem here is that us dems really have no idea what type of leader Obama would be. Unfortunately, that actually helps him against Mrs. Clinton. I also agree with you that he is the least qualified candidate. Again, I think that actually helps him, at least in terms of the D nomination.
I think if he were president with an R congress, things might be alright. I don't know that much would get done if he had a D congress other than the typical status quo stuff.
Gotta say, as I've said before, you are absolutely right about McCain, too. Obama can beat him. And, as liberal as I am, I think a Romney/Obama race would make for an interesting campaign and be good for everyone. Not surprisingly, moveon.org today endorsed Obama. Even they know she can't win.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:41 pm
"Now, any tips you might have for me on how I can convince Obama to become less liberal would be greatly appreciated. That's his only flaw."
His only flaw? King, King. The fact is that B. Hussein Obama is rated as the most liberal member of the U.S. Seante. You can't get a leopard to change its spots.
To see how destructive this guy could be as president, listen to what John O'Sullivan says about him in his article "The Obama Appeal" (National Review, Feb. 11).
"A glimpse at his [Obama's] speeches and programs demostrates that he is committed, like all the Democratic candidates, to such policies as racial preferences, multiculturalism, liberal immigration laws, and the transfer of power from America's constitutional republic to non-accountable global bodies and international law. For Obama is not merely a post-racist; he is a post-nationalist and a post-American, too."
Given his way, Obama would dissolve the essences of America in with the world — and much of it the Third World.
Rest easy. This guy will never be president.
As for Comrade Hillary, it is still her primary race to lose what with the Dim's "super delegates" at the convention and the Clinton machine. We'll know more Tuesday night.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Whoever wins the nomination, the Dems need to get their Iraq fairy tale straight before the fall. That's still a very big issue and most Americans don't see it as simplistically as Reverend and Obama seem to.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Let me make sure I get this right, Vince, first it was movie columnists and now it's the British that you are getting your opinions from? And an advisor to Thatcher at that? And you may want to read things Mr. O'Sullivan said a little closer, because I think he actually believes (unlike you) that Mr. Obama can win. He wrote:
"My second reaction is that both Hillary and Obama have a better grasp on what Americans currently want than either the Republicans or Cornerites. Take the issue that (Ron Paul excepted) unites each party on its side of the partisan divide — Iraq. Whether we like it or not, Democrats are closer to the majority view on Iraq. The success of the surge has reduced the salience of Iraq as an issue damaging the GOP but that has not made it an issue that wins votes for the GOP. So it did no damage for Hillary and Obama to discuss it endlessly and their disagreement—who is most reliably determined to leave — will not anger their supporters or most uncommitted voters.
What Republicans needed to do was to agree on a clear line — for instance, that the U.S. is well on the way to handing over a stable Iraq to the Iraqi people but must not spoil that by leaving prematurely — state it crisply, and then move on to highlight matters on which the American people share their opinions. Instead, they had a completely unprofitable quarrel over the minutiae of whether Romney was enthusiastic enough about the surge in good time."
Don't be fooled that Obama can't win; he can and many of you Rs know it. If it's McCain-Obama, I would love to watch the inauguration with you Vince. Would make for some mighty fine viewing.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:50 pm
Im not fooled into thinking Obama cant win……I know he can win. That is why I want Clinton to win the nomination.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:18 am
I have been curious about the Dem. candidates spin on the immigration issue. I give them credit for the approach that allows the issue to be deflected. Illegals are not part of the problem of strained emergency rooms, overcrowded schools,low wages or even Americans unable to find work because of the illegals willing to work for low wages. Nope. It is employers taking advantage of them and the terrible economy and they are suffering just like all other Americans. The Dems. economic approach will result in all Americans being secure and prosperous then the issue will be moot. I initally had some reservations but upon futher thought I realized by questioning the veracity of the answer I would prove I was xenophobic,racist and a bigot. I suggest John McCain promote Dr.Juan Hernandez from a member of his staff to V.P. candidate. Juan is certainly qualified and his experince being a part of Vincente Fox's cabinet proves he is experinced. Hopefully this suggestion proves my compassion and undrstanding of the true nature of the issue?
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 am
I am a little late in getting around today but although I may change the subject, King this is the most humorous of all your posts. It is also full of truth that has been discussed, at least a little.
I want to insert the funniest thing of the day here. This afternoon Wolf Blitzer became so enamored of the idea on CNN that Obama and Clinton could run together that he kep talking about a common ticket about every 15 minutes. I bet some Dems who missed up to about 5:00 pm may, indeed, have thought that it might be true. He kept saying Obama - Clinton and Clinton-Obama as if he was trying to figure which sounded best.
I immediately wondered if Obam could stand 4 years of the Bubba ego and decided he surely would think of that and leave HIllary standing. Besides he was made by his speech in 2004 and the other night another woman, a Governor yet, made the response speech which I think put her in the running for VP. I hope that Obama takes that governor away from her last two years as she is my governor who I had said months ago that I would never vote for again. Now I have two people I can't vote for on the same ticket.
Please take the lady away from us the last two years of her term, Barack.
February 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
King, here's some sobering food for thought:
National Journal
Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007, according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ reporters and editors, to place every senator on a liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In 2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.
http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Kerry was also the most liberal senator when he ran, and had the election been 3 months later, he would have won. As it was, he got the most votes a "liberal" candidate ever got. Makes an Obama presidency a very real possibility.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:54 am
Rev,
I'm still amazed at how you think just saying something makes it so.
If the Democrats are not invested in defeat in Iraq, point me to one idea the Dems are proposing for how we can win there. Point me to any ideas the Dem candidates have that are not 'pull the troops out'. I can't wait for this response.
The only ideas they have been invested in are pulling out, defunding the troops, impeaching the commander-in-chief, discrediting Petraeus, calling the war a lost cause, calling our soldiers torturers, etc, etc. To say anything OTHER than 'the Dems are invested in defeat' is what's ridiculous, no matter how Obama is trying to spin it. The Democratic base is counting on it. No 'neocon lies and spin' required. All you have to do is look at the facts. It's like I've always said, it was one thing to disagree with the Iraq invasion. It's another thing completely to court failure there, as the Dems have done all along.
You add to the Defeatocrat talk yourself time after time. Your characterizations of american efforts there are ALL grounded in failure. You say 'there's nothing to win there', at the same time as the US is fighting Al Qaeda and the former Saddam supporting insurgency. That is just a flat out LIE. You prove my point. Then you talk about america engaging in the 'rightness' of the 'bloodshed of foreigners', as if it's all just some big racist sporting event, instead of what it really is: the removal of the Butcher of Baghdad, which became a fight against terrorism and against a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East. And here we are now, with the Iraqis WINNING the battle against those same forces (who are the ones REALLY killing the innocent in Iraq. It's NOT the US), and you are still trying to lose the war by mouthing the words of your puppetmasters.
I think you should start a new tv network, DNN (Democratic News Network). The motto could be 'all lies all the time'. Oh wait, we already have that. It's known as the MSM, who've been strangely quiet about Iraq lately. Hmmm. Imagine that.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:06 am
da truth,
I'm kinda hoping for a Romney/Obama contest myself. I think that would really illustrate the divide between the right and the left, and I believe that if all policies are clearly laid out on the table and contrasted, the right will win EVERY time. Of course, our media makes every effort to disguise the agenda of the left, and also to bash anyone who carries the conservative standard, such as Romney (he's conservative relative to McCain, at least, though not the ideal candidate). The Democrats and the MSM have to be pretty happy with the way things are going right now. Obama, who is liberal to the bone, as Vince pointed out, is gaining, and McCain, the most liberal Republican imaginable, is leading.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:12 am
Vince,
C'mon, gimme a break here. When I said being a liberal was Obama's only flaw, I didn't mean that as a small criticism. I meant it as a big one.
It's funny you mentioned that National Review article 'The Obama Appeal', because I have that magazine sitting on my coffee table, opened to that article, but I haven't read it yet.
I'm not convinced the Dems won't nominate Obama yet, but you're right, tuesday should tell us a lot.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:27 am
Roy,
Until a few weeks ago, I would have said CNN (the Clinton News Network) wanted Hillary atop a Clinton/Obama ticket, but now I'm not so sure, since CNN finally realized the Clintons play dirty politics (15 years after the rest of us made the same realization), when they turned their machine against Obama.
The first time I ever heard the Kansas governor speak was following the SOTU, and I was not impressed, to say the least. Our Ohio guv, Strickland, is also rumored to be a potential VP candidate. So far, he's done a little better than I would have predicted, but compared to our fomer guv, Republican dolt Bob Taft, almost anything is an improvement.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Governor Sebelius talked with a lot more conviction last spring as soon as Bush left Greensburg and headed for Wichita where his plane was waiting. He couldn't have been more than 10 miles down the road before she told the media that the state couldn't really answer the needs of the people of Greensburg because so much of the National Guard equipment was in Iraq. just the day before she said that my son, who was there to help in the cleanup, told me that there were three blocks of heavy dump trucks from the NG parked bumper to bumper.
What the woman should have said was that she wouldn't be able to help if a similar situation occurred before that one was tended to. She was playing dirty Democrat politics since that talk was just what Nancy Peeloosly kept saying back then. I said then that I would never vote for her for anything after that and now I can say that an Obama - Sebelius ticket gives me two people on the same ticket not to vote for.
I am thinking that as a woman who is very Democrat she would make a black and a female which could do the trick very well. Also, they will be able to show that she is very green thinking so all those greenies could be sucked in.
February 4th, 2008 at 1:33 am
I wonder if the Dems said during WWII that the country couldn't handle the needs of the people due to the war strain on the troops. Oh wait, the Dems ran that war. Back then, they were still patriotic.
I've always wondered how 150,000 troops in Iraq meant the military can't do anything else. Doesn't that leave us about 850,000 troops to spare ?