A Random Thought
January 24th, 2008 - 9:13 pm
It just occurred to me that one of these jokers — Clinton, McCain, Obama or Romney — is going to be the next President. It’s almost enough to make one pine for the old days of Bush v Gore.
Maybe it’s time to go back to voting Libertarian, depending on whom they nominate of course.
Every four years I say “Good grief, Charlie Brown, the presidential field can’t get any worse than this.” And four years later, the GOP/Dems always prove me wrong.
Which is sort of why I say: “If God wanted us to vote, he would give us candidates worth voting for.”
I’m still hoping Rudy Giuliani can pull off Florida.
Youve got to be kidding rudy?
TO: Stephen Green
RE: Well….
“….Clinton, McCain, Obama or Romney — is going to be the next President.” — Stephen Green
Colorado holds it’s caucuses a week from Tuesday, i.e., 5 February 2008.
What are YOU going to do that evening at 7 pm?
I would hope you would be caucusing, drunk or not.
If all you do in politics is piss and moan, you’re not really doing anything more than people do about the weather. And we can do a LOT more about politics than we can the weather.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Politics is more than talk.]
Esq – it’s incredible but it’s true – when WJC got elected it proved that ANYONE can become president.
I’ve called the White House at least ten times over the last year (how many people do you know who have 1-202-456-1111 in their cell phone contacts list?). I called the GOP national headquarters just yesterday and gave some poor girl both barrels about pork barrel corruption, Jeff Flake likely being passed over for the Appropriations Committee, and the lesson of 2006. I have a letter that I insert into GOP fundraiser letters I receive, telling them to stop supporting Specter, Hagel, Collins, Chafee, and Graham with my money and I’ll consider contributing again. I have written letters to my (CA) senators and congressmen, but something tells me that Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer and Pete Honda aren’t swayed by my conservative rhetorical genius. I write letters to the editor–and even get published from time to time as the token conservative.
The thing is, Chuck, I’m beginning to believe that people are not getting into politics for altruistic reasons. I’m also beginning to believe that they are not all that principled–or even that smart. At 55 years-old, call me a slow learner.
In any event, it seems to me that politics is ALL talk–and money. I agree that whining is not all that productive, but I certainly understand the urge to quaff a Grey Goose up w/twist and fire off a hopeless lamentation now and then.
PDQ
TO: PD Quip
RE: Reality
“The thing is, Chuck, I’m beginning to believe that people are not getting into politics for altruistic reasons. I’m also beginning to believe that they are not all that principled–or even that smart. At 55 years-old, call me a slow learner.” — PD Quip
Good points. And I tend to agree with you.
As Emerson put it, in the 1800s….
But that doesn’t matter. What REALLY matters is that we do something about it.
That BEGINS with getting IN the game instead of sharpshooting from the bleachers….or the sidelines.
Go to your caucus. Bring all your neighbors with you.
I don’t know how they do it on the other side of the political aisle, but four years ago I and the distaff lead a floor-fight at the follow-on County Assembly that stood the powers-that-be on their ear when they tried to railroad a vote on a resolution.
The ‘teller’, i.e., guy deciding the vote, was saying he ‘heard’ more Nays than Ayes. We objected and forced a ‘standing vote’; you stand up until you’ve been counted. Not a ‘who has the loudest contingent’.
Turned out he was wrong and we were right.
It all starts with you…and me….and whomever has the courage/energy/wits to get involved.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. On Earmarks….
….I’m on a number of ‘commissions’; one of which deals with county transportation planning.
There IS a place for ‘earmarks’ in the federal budget.
However, that place is IN the spotlight. Not skulking about in the murky shadows of smoke-filled rooms….even though I do enjoy a fine A.Fuente….now and then.
P.P.S. Speaking of ‘slow learners’….
….I’ve got two years on you. But I was mentally handicapped. I was in the Army until ’97 and was arbitrarily, apolitical.
My Neighbors?
I don’t even know my neighbors man. I move around too much.
And the reason I don’t run for any kind of seat in anything is that I don’t want the media digging into my private life.
Who needs that?
If Giuliani doesn’t win Florida, Mitt is the only panderer left I could “support” — but I don’t see anyone touching the anointed one, Obama, in November.
I wish we lived in a world where Rudy felt comfortable attacking the other Republicans (he is the party reptile — and decided it would be better to simply praise his competition instead of point out their foolishness on occasion). A simple look at Mike Huckabee, saying “Is this the direction you really want to take this party? I don’t think so.”
TO: ErikZ
RE: Sounds Like…
“I don’t even know my neighbors man. I move around too much.” — ErikZ
…a personal problem.
However, I was in a similar situation, until I got out of Denver and moved to a smaller community….where people actually seem to care about each other.
I’m reminded of that experiment done about ‘overcrowding’ in the 50s. It involved rats.
When the population density reached a certain point, the rats became (1) apathetic and (2) aggressive. Not a particularly good combination, for rats or people.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Even if you do win a rat race, you're still a rat.]
Sheesh! The Rudy-ites are beginning to sound like the Paul-ites: “He’s our only hope against Hill-Billary-Bama”
No, the only hope against them was voting for someone unlike them. We’re fixing to have a democrat for president, even if he has an (R) behind his name.
Two of the four have been endorsed by the New York Times. I’ll take that as instructive.
Now that leaves only two!
chuckle, the caucuses are a done deal. I’ve been trying to pry people loose for Thompson since March of last year. Nothing happening. The Owens people have tons locked down and are stacking the deck for Romney as best they can. And on the other side you have Guiliani backed by the Holtzman faction of the party. I can almost guarantee what will happen if you get enough to overcome one of those groups at your local caucus – they will make phone calls and all of a sudden a ton more of their supporters show up out of the blue.
The Country Club owns the party in Colorado. And they are driving it straight off a cliff, just like they did with Coors, with ODonnel in the 7th, and Beauprez for gov.
The GOP in colorado is failing because uts leadership covets power and is willing to abandon principle to maintain it.
They’d rather control a loser than risk losing control of a winner.
It just occurred to me that one of these jokers — Clinton, McCain, Obama or Romney — is going to be the next President.
Which is still far better than Edwards and Huckabee and arguably Bush and Gore.
TO: W.Collier
RE: Your Caucuses
“…the caucuses are a done deal. I’ve been trying to pry people loose for Thompson since March of last year. Nothing happening.” — W.Collier
Maybe where you are. Not necessarily where I am.
Besides. There’s more to the caucus, here, than just selection of the nominee. There’s also the development of resolutions that will go into the party platforms at county, state and national levels.
As for the Country Club set….well….to paraphrase the Christ….
That doesn’t mean we do nothing. Or are you one of the ‘self-defeated’?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It is not whether you win or lose that is most important. It is HOW you played the game.]
P.S. I’m talking about the game of Life, here.
P.P.S. Also, about the Country Club….
….it is my personal opinion that the local club waters down their martinis.
RE: W Collier
“The GOP in colorado is failing because uts leadership covets power ”
They can covet it all they want, but they’ve done precious little to secure it. Hell, they weren’t able to get it together enough to have a website until last week??? I gave up on a meaningful voter registration drive in 2006. They were too busy losing I guess.
Bring on Prez Hillary or Prez McCain..
Woe to the Republic.
How about this scenario? The Republicans go into their convention with no one having enough delegates to win. The convention becomes one of the old time brokered, behind closed doors deal making moments (which we used to have prior to 1960) and a compromise candidate is offered up at the last minute. Condeleeza Rice emerges as the Republican candidate and the first woman/black President history is elected. Hey, you never know…
TO: Ron J
RE: Now THERE’S….
“Condeleeza Rice emerges as the Republican candidate and the first woman/black President history is elected. Hey, you never know…” — Ron J
….an INTERESTING and plausible scenario I could support.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. It would be a hoot to see Sharpton and Jackson respond to THAT situation.
“P.P.S. Also, about the Country Club….
….it is my personal opinion that the local club waters down their martinis.”
Any Country Club that waters down its martinis needs to be frogmarched straight to Gitmo and left there. Some things just are not done.
And I cannot vote Libertarian anymore, at least until they stop being ostriches.
You can still write in Fred’s name…
What’s your problem with Romney?
You would pine for GWBush over Romney?
Please. The only thing GWB got right was the war on terror. Other than that, he’s been a miserable excuse for a Republican.
Assuming that Romney would get the war on terror just as right as GWB, surely he’s a better candidate than any DHIMMIcRAT or Little Lord Fauntleroy (McCain).
Hey, if Hillary and Obama butcher each other bad enough, the loser’s supporters just might stay home on election day, hoping their candidate can beat the Republican winner in 2012!
Let’s start a “draft Fred” movement.
TO: rbj
RE: Agreed
“Any Country Club that waters down its martinis needs to be frogmarched straight to Gitmo….” — rbj
After they’ve been ‘wired for sound’, a la that guy on the box at Abu Ghraib.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[I didn't cheat, I just changed the rules! -- certain cretinous bartenders]
The last time I checked, George W. Bush had been President for the last seven years.
And you’re worried about one of THOSE four “jokers” being President?
Time to lay off the sauce….
What’s your problem with Romney?
Did anyone else see what he was saying in Michigan? Pander pander pander.
I don’t agree with McCain on much, but I have to respect someone who went to Iowa and told corn farmers ethanol was a bad idea, and followed it up by going to Michigan and told UAW workers the car jobs weren’t coming back.
TO: rosignol
RE: McCain
I cannot have any respect for an officer of the Armed Forces of the United States who was a principle in the degradation of the Bill of Rights.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
All that’s left is to resolve which “joker” would do the best (or least worst) job. Given that:
Hillary – cf. 1992-2000, also a total statist, also endorsed by NYT, also a Senator
Obama – extremely liberal, has nearly four years experience in anything outside the state of Illinois, also a Senator
McCain – Campaign Finance Reform, also endorsed by NYT, also a Senator
Romney – has been branded a flip-flopper and panderer (usually by people who already seem to hate him,) not a Senator, anti-endorsed by NYT
I’m going with Romney.
Note: the anti-endorsement of Rudy by the NYT almost made me like the man again. And, I prefer Thompson, especially a Romney-Thompson (any order) ticket. But you vote for who’s on the ballot, or you surrender what little influence you have left.
I lost faith in the Republican party after watching Reagan say the right words and act like a theocratic Democrat on so many issues during his terms in office. Reagan was an actor who used economic pressure to complete the fall of the Soviet system, nothing more. Bush I and II did nothing for my conservative hopes. I’ve been outspoken since and without any choices every four years.
What am I looking for? I want the most conservative candidate available. First of all, principles that are tested and unbowed – not a common feature in Washington.
Second, truly committed to limited Federal government, with specific plans and an overarching philosophy to attack waste and socialism.
Third, I want a true fiscal conservative; things won’t be any better in 2009 given the way 2008 is starting. The world is flooded with fiat money, our national debts keep going up and up like there is no limit, and the middle-class is caught in the middle.
Fourth, stop acting like the USA must control the world to meet its goals. Time and again, as people gain hope for a better life through trade, shooting wars rarely start between trading partners. Just as both President W. Taft and Senator R. Taft advocated, alliances without meddling brings prosperity to the USA.
I’d like a pro-gun, pro-life candidate – and a faithful Christian as well. But please don’t wave your religion in my face, it’s unseemly. Use it to let me know you have values I can identify with.
IMO, conservatives don’t have a better choice than my candidate. For he is truly on the conservative side in important issues of security, economics, and social issues. Second of all, he is clearly the best candidate to beat Hillary when you look at issues such as honesty, past scandal, and attitude. Mostly, he is the only front-runner whom conservatives can trust; he is a man who has principles and who sticks to them, even if you have policy differences. Can we say the same of the others?
This is a two-man race – the RINOs vs. Rep. Ron Paul. I choose to support the only reliable conservative with broad support from the important demographic of independent voters (who determine the President by their selection) and enough money and supporters to compete in every primary and caucus. Any RINO candidate is a slam-dunk loss for a future that makes 1976 look like fun.
Ron Paul—-the only choice for freedom, peace, and prosperity–is supported by a strong foundation of faith in God, the Constitution, and America. That works for me.
TO: CitizenLiberty
RE: To Each….
“Ron Paul—-the only choice for freedom, peace, and prosperity” — CitizenLiberty
….his/her/its own.
But as for ‘peace’, that’s highly unlikely, as isolationism doesn’t seem to work very well.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Romney/Thompson or Romney/Giuliani would be fantastic.
Romney is not the flip-flopper he is portrayed to be. Policy decisions and ideology are often two different things, the former become reality and the latter theory. Ideally they are one in the same, but when you are governor of Massachusetts, for a Republican to win, govern with fiscal restraint, and not sell his soul? I’m sold.
As for the pandering charges, Romney believes that US automakers can become competitive? Did he promise to maintain the jobs bank? Bail out GM/Ford/Chrysler? No. He just thinks things can turn around.
Wait, didn’t Clinton already run the country for eight years? Or do you think she’ll let Bill run the show this time?
Chuck(le):
Non-intervention is not isolationism.
Isolationism is the policy of removing one’s country from the affairs of other nations by declining to enter into alliances, foreign economic commitments, international agreements, etc.; seeking to devote the entire efforts of one’s country to its own advancement and remain at peace by avoiding foreign entanglements and responsibilities.
Non-intervention is the abstention by a nation from interference in the affairs of other nations. This, in fact, used to be the Republican policy throughout the 20th century, on the advice of President Washington. And, no, the world really hasn’t changed a whole lot since, despite the war drum banging and propaganda.
As Rep. Paul has noted, it makes no sense to spend money to blow up another country’s bridges, spend money to re-build those bridges, and place troops in that country to protect those bridges when the bridges in this country go begging for support (pun intended).
Quite simply, non-intervention means trading and talking with other countries, not working to control their actions, leadership, or resources. Let’s focus on the needs of Americans, not dictators and socialists who want America to disappear.
TO: CitizenLiberty
RE: Yeah…Right….
“Non-intervention is not isolationism.” — CitizenLiberty
….just like in WWII. We almost lost that one because of our ‘non-interventionism’, a.k.a., isolationism.
The only difference being that the Japanese merely attacked Pearl Harbor instead of invading and occupying the HIs.
[Note: Before you go off on a tangent of BS, I've played the invasion scenario out using VG's Pacific War. It could well have succeeded. And if that had happened, we would have had to pull naval forces from the Atlantic to protect the West Coast. So many that we would not have enough naval forces
there to win the Battle of the North Atlantic. The result being Germany overwhelming Great Britain.]
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[For the ignorant and/or stupid, history repeats itself. I.e., it kicks their sorry a--.]
Chuck(le) wrote “….just like in WWII. We almost lost that one because of our ‘non-interventionism’, a.k.a., isolationism.”
Read the definitions more, closely…non-intervention is NOT also known as isolation. Only the uneducated miss the difference and I don’t think you’re mentally slow. So why the baiting?
My understanding of the 1937-1945 period of US history is remiss, apparently. I had always thought that the US had an alliance with Britain before the shooting war started, providing military equipment, financing and intelligence through the Lend Lease program in an effort to stay out of the European mess.
And I had always thought that the conflict between the US and Japan in the late 1930s (over their invasion of China and Indochina and our economic sanctions) was the key component towards forcing the Japanese to attack Pearl Harbor, not an isolated incident of aggression.
Yes, anyone can create a false-flag argument comparing the history of the past with today. Doesn’t mean there’s any value or logic to the comparison.
Would you say that 1930′s Germany is comparable to third-world religious thugs in the 21st Century? Beyond the generalities (such as territorial control with identifiable borders, an industrial base, and a unifying monetary system), I don’t see Islamic thugs gaining the political, economic or military power to destroy the US.
And yes, Harry Turtledove has made a good living by playing alternate history scenarios. I also did the wargaming life for a while (War in the East, my fav) and enjoyed the ‘what ifs’ with my friends. However, I try not to live in a land of ‘What if’ when examining current political events. I mean, if the Confederate states had actually prevailed in 1861, we wouldn’t have the corruption in Washington that currently exists. Meaningless as your Atlantic Fleet scenario but entertaining nonetheless.
TO: CitizenLiberty
RE: Definitions
“Read the definitions more, closely…non-intervention is NOT also known as isolation.” — CitizenLiberty
Yeah…Right….
As if professional military officers don’t study history.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A tree is recognized by its fruit. -- some Wag, around 2000 years ago]
P.S. The ‘Gaming’ Life
“I also did the wargaming life for a while…” — CitizenLiberty(?)
It’s not just a ‘life’. It is a simulation that can be used for educational purposes.
The way you ‘put’ it, it’s like that Tom Hanks movie where the kid loses himself in a fantasy.
The way I, and my comrades-in-arms, use it is to prepare us for dealing with the future.
There’s a tad of a difference, buckie. Whether you accept it or not.
During IOAC [Benning School for Boys], we’d get together for a weekend of knock-down/drag-out testing the ‘theories’ taught us using Red Star/White Star. Teams of company-grade infantry types working through whether or not we were being fed BS or not.
Ultimately, the proof of the proverbial pudding is in the ‘eating’. And, when it came to a test, I out-performed my non-gaming contemporaries in company command in 4ID(M)….in military tactical proficiency.
However, because I was a ‘mustang’, my sense of ‘tact’ was best described by one superior officer as “He attacked”, when dealing with an overbearing megalomaniac with delusions of godhood and stars in his eyes. But that’s another story…..
But even he admired my tactical proficiency, even as he ruined my active-duty career. After all…I listened to him blistering the fourth-point-of-contact off all my fellow company commanders, as they ran the exercise.
All I got was, “Advance to next phase-line” and “Seize the objective.”
At this point I am hoping for a brokered convention where Fred gets drug back into the mix.
Romney is not the flip-flopper he is portrayed to be.
Hm?
When he was in office in MA, he was pro-AWB, now, he’s joined the NRA and is claiming to have the NRA’s support (the NRA denies endorsing Romney for anything, ever).
He might still be in favor of banning assault weapons (which he seems to be referring to as ‘weapons of extraordinary lethality’ these days, which tells real gunnies that the man is completely ignorant about firearms), but he certainly isn’t advertising it. Apparently someone clued him into the fact that being anti-2nd A is an election-loser outside of New England.
That’s one issue, I’m sure there are more.
Policy decisions and ideology are often two different things, the former become reality and the latter theory.
Go down that road, and you get politicians who’s only guiding principle is that they should be in power. No thanks.
Ideally they are one in the same, but when you are governor of Massachusetts, for a Republican to win, govern with fiscal restraint, and not sell his soul? I’m sold.
I have a difficult time believing a Republican can win in Massachusetts without selling his soul…. what passes for a Republican in New England would be a Democrat in most of the rest of the country. Republicans outside of New England know this.
I’ll take Romney over Hillary in the general election, but I’m going to write in Thompson in my state primary if he’s not on the ballot.
YAY!!! Somebody listened to me!!! Write in Fred and hope for a brokered convention, cause if it’s brokered, we can fix it! (ok. Admittedly that was weak in the pun area, but I’m trying…)
I really like Duncan Hunter too, and with him and Fred Thompson on the ticket it would read Hunter Thompson! Cool, huh!
“P.S. It would be a hoot to see Sharpton and Jackson respond to THAT situation.”
I thought these two had already come out and claimed that Ms. Rice is not really black…That she is a sellout and worse. Besides, she would have an R behind her name, therefore she must have a 666 tattooed on her somewhere. (Only half joking)
Liberty, the Confederacy did prevail starting in 1876; when its ‘insurgents’ in the Klan, followers of guerilla fighter Nathan Bedford Forrest,scared and killed enough voters to make the 1876 Compromise possible. After that, the Union occupiers left, and a little thing called Jim Crow was instituted for about 87 years. “Slavery was not back in effect” as the Ole’ Public Enemy tune goes, but it was darn near. By 1896; they even got the US Supreme Court to ratify it.
But as the Ginzu commercial went, there’s more. A string of lynchings provoked the rise of the NAACp; whose founder W.E. B Dubois, decided to protest the Taft administration’s indeference by endorsing
Woodrow Wilson; who nationalized Jim Crow
by introducing it into the D.C. public schools; and gave ‘a shout out’ byendorsing William Simmon’s klan tract and the video
version; D.W. Griffith’s ‘Birth of a Nation’. Wilson also gave us the Federal Reserve, the IRS, the Creel Commission (war time propaganda agency)the Sedition & Espionage Act, that nabbed labor leaders and
presidential candidates (take that, Patriot
Act)He also invaded Mexico (for the oil!)&
Haiti for the first time; and let’s not forget invaded Russia after a fashion
I have to read through all these damned comments just to toss my own bone into the machine? Blast. Look, Bush had a classically liberal “big government” CRISIS thrown into his lap. That’s why the Libs hate him so and got all conspiratorial about 9/11, for they had been creating FAKE crises for years, in order to make us individual anthill citizens turn our DAILY lives into mere orbits ’round people with long paper forms and guns. The reason Bush is hated so, is that God (of fascist and polygamous Islam no less) handed him the power to be a true dictator. But, despite a few official laws that have not effected my life (except the mythical long waiting lines at airports which I have yet to actually experience even when the first gate guards accidently waved me through, not seeing my carry-on bag, and real Gate Guards freaked out about it, until, well, they x–rayed my shoes ASAP and waited-and-waited until the official Homeland Security dude took one look at me and waved me onto the plane that I was about to miss), I am not in fear of writing this entirely traceable comment that not only hold my middle finger up to the sky to say “high” to “God” but wishes that Bush is remembered for actually NOT using this crisis to gain more power, but to actually, uh, FIX the crisis, like the dumbly unsophisticated frat boy that he is.
TO: Evil Bob, et al.
RE: Me Too
“At this point I am hoping for a brokered convention where Fred gets drug back into the mix.” — Evil Bob
I’m now reading Catton’s The Coming Fury; part 1 of his Civil War Centennial trilogy.
The first chapter is all about the strange goings-on at the Democrat and Republican national conventions of 1860. With considerable detail of the back-room/behind-the-scenes ‘brokering’ of delegates and political favors that got Stephen Douglas the Democratic nomination and Abraham Lincoln the Republican and someone named Breckenridge the Southern Democratic slot.
The REALLY strange thing about it seems to be that the Southern Democrats DELIBERATELY split the part in an effort to LOSE the election. They WANTED a Republican president. Why? Because they wanted to prod the Southern states to secede. They, like the Japanese 80 years later, thought the Northern states wouldn’t have the gumption to fight.
At any rate, the key point is that the machinations of the political king-makers leave plenty of room for ‘brokering’ at these conventions.
But, I suspect that unless the people do something, starting at the grass-roots level, i.e., in Colorado at their respective caucuses on 5 Feb, the king-makers will do their thing without the benefit of the peoples’ opinions.
For the Republicans, it looks like the state-level people want to know what we in the precincts are thinking, as there will be a ‘straw-poll’ for presidential candidates this caucus. We’ve been doing this for six years now and this is the first one where such a poll has been taken.
It could mean a number of things; some good, some bad. But it is significant, either way.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
TO: rosignol
RE: Romney
“…now, he’s joined the NRA and is claiming to have the NRA’s support….” — rosignol
He has their support. They send him their magazines. They give him discounts on various forms of firearms training. They give him information on how to get in touch with local organizations. Etc., etc., etc…..
So, in a manner of speaking, he has the NRA’s ‘support’. Just like Mr. Bill didn’t have ‘sex’ with that young ‘lady’.
Typical politician.
I think the Republicans can, and should, do better.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first. -- Ronald Reagan]
TO: narciso
RE: The Party of Slavery
“After that, the Union occupiers left, and a little thing called Jim Crow was instituted for about 87 years. “Slavery was not back in effect” as the Ole’ Public Enemy tune goes, but it was darn near. By 1896; they even got the US Supreme Court to ratify it.” — narciso
Back on Catton’s history of the Civil War, I’m noticing a continuity here; between the 1850s and today and a certain political party.
I have not formulated a complete linkage but at first glance the Democrats seem to have ALWAYS been for slavery.
They sided with the Southern States on slavery before the Civil War. They supported Jim Crow after the occupation.
Yes. During the early 1960s they were all for Civil Rights with various legislative and judicial actions. But at that same time they shifted gears, going from first gear, with FDRs early forms of socialism, to third gear; the welfare state.
I get the impression that they transformed their approach to slavery from chains and whips to social services and doling out dollars.
Either way, these ‘slaves’—whether servile or welfare—are dependent upon their ‘masters’ for their survival.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added. -- Ronald Reagan]
TO: All
RE: Looking Deeper
Re-reading my latest comment, I’m thinking there is something of a correlation between the item (above) and the vaunted American public education system.
Until I started reading Catton’s account of the Civil War, I was unaware of how the Democrats supported slavery; then AND now.
I’m wondering at the interesting lack of education in history that the public schools seem to offer.
I say this from the perspective of a Judge/Critic of Colorado High School Debate Tournaments.
Every event I go to, I continually have to bite my tongue as I hear some student-contender in a Cross-X or Lincoln-Douglas or Public Forum round say something that smacks of total ignorance of history.
This is not to say that ALL our high school students are ‘ignorant’. A good number of them make rational and cogent arguments based on factual history. But all too many seem like they’ve never heard of historical facts relating to the topic they are arguing.
But it does bring to mind the question of WHO is teaching WHAT to our children. And, furthermore, WHY?
The next time it comes up at the 2010 Commission—a city/county-sanctioned citizens oversight committee in Pueblo County—I may have to ask cute ‘Kitty’ Kennedy, the rep from School District 60 about that.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you're not paranoid, it's because you are not 'paying attention'.]
P.S. The only way to ‘pay attention’ is to ‘get involved’, as the so-called major media won’t tell you that thinks are getting ‘strange’.
On the other hand, we have bloggers, like Stephen….thank [the] God [he doesn't recognize].
P.P.S. If this theory is correct, that would make Sharpton and Jackson foremen on the Democrat ‘plantation’.
Hmmmm…..
…..their comportment, especially regarding the report by Jayman….
….seems to support that idea.
P.P.P.S. I’m looking forward to the howls from the Leftist community about this theory. I’ve got a quote from ole Abe that will knock their teeth down their throat, already lined up.
AND, it is from one of Catton’s books; Never Call Retreat.
TO: Thompson Fans
RE: One Thing….
….you might consider doing is getting his former staffers to (1) get their act(s) together and (2) getting Thompson back in the game.
You might consider starting with Darrell Ng, who used to be the campaign’s media-pointman.
He’s apparently on a tare about Chuck Norris and has started a web-site to beat on the actor….something I think is a total waste of time and energy.
Here’s the web-site…
http://boycottchucknorris.typepad.com/boycottchucknorris/2008/01/boycott-chuck-n.html?cid=98786018#comment-98786018
I’ve beaten on Ng telling him to get his act together.
I suggest that others who support the idea of Thompson getting back into the race should do the same.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Politics is almost as exciting as war, and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times. -- Winston Churchill]
P.S. Let’s get Thompson to take another chance to die.