Category Archives: bob cesca

>OBSERVATON: Is the election over?


From the fever swamps of the blogosphere to the halls of academia, there is a chorus of voices who have come to the same conclusion about the presidential election: Barack Obama is going to win in November, by something resembling a landslide. DAVID PAUL KUHN —

So sayeth the liberal establishment.

The radical left gabbers and scriveners, such as Tom Press and Bob Cesca, are mentally becalmed in one of two political doldrums. They either remain bewildered over Barack Obama’s apparent inability to break away from the hapless John McCain in the major polls … or … they stagnate in their belief in the certainty of Obama’s election – a landslide no less. For the latter, it is neither a theory nor a dream, but a self-induced inevitability.

Their optimism is buoyed by the uncritical and ever-praising pronouncements and opining of the major news media and entertainment industry. To their fault, they fail to recognize that the applause of Hollywood and the prophecy of the pundits are no more than the returning echos of their own overly optimistic and fatally biased voices.

For all the hoopla, optimism, attempts at self-proving prophecy, and down right stupidity, one fact remains. Obama is NOT winning. Even if you take the race today, and trust the polls, the junior senator from Illinois is basically tied with the much derided and dreaded McCain. Day-by-day the candidates merely switch places within the indecisive margin of error.

If you apply past trends and a bit of common sense, the real questions are: Has Obama already lost? Is the presidential race over?

In other words, “decision ‘08” may be in the can already. The voters may already have made up their minds, and it is only for us to wait out the remainder of the campaign until they can turn their private opinions into cast ballots that can be gathered and counted.

There is a point in Bridge where the outcome of the game can be deduced even though there are several tricks to be played out. Those unfamiliar with the game may see uncertainty in the remaining plays, but seasoned bridge players see the inevitable result. We may have reached that point in the 2008 presidential campaign. While we must play out the hand through the conventions and General Election, old political bulls can foretell the results – assuming the remaining cards a played properly.

It may not appear that way on the surface. After all, Obama and McCain are running neck and neck — usually somewhere in the mid-40s. There are, however, a number of indicators that Obama has lost the election, needing only the vote count to confirm that fact.

1. The most ominous sign is that despite Obama’s unprecedented promotional media publicity (we should not call it “news” anymore), he cannot edge over the 50 percent mark – ever. As I noted in a previous blog, Democrats generally require a substantial lead at this time in the election cycle to stave off the traditional GOP last minute surge. There is no reason to believe that the surge will not happen this year.

2. The percentage of undecideds is comparatively small. So, where those undecideds decide to come down is rather important. History tells us they are mostly going to McCain.

3. Then there is the Bradley Effect, which suggests the black candidate will not do as well among non-blacks as the polls indicates. Seems people fib to the pollsters when asked if they intend so vote for the African-American candidate. This is especially true if the pollster is black, which often is the case. More bad news for Obama.

4. While Obama has enjoyed the luxury of avoiding tough issues in the primaries, he is already seeing the negative impact of closer scrutiny. His borderline socialist platform will not fare well with the mainstream voters. His Middle East policy is in shambles. Its an unconditional pull out of Iraq, a build up in Afghanistan, and no idea what to do about Iran. Unconditional troop withdrawal is another word for surrender, and the public sees no need or desire for that. He opposes the popular public will to start drilling for oil in Yosemite Park, if necessary. His legislation to commit hundreds of billions to “solve” world hunger does not get traction with voters who see enough needs here at home.

5. Obama is also going to get roughed up for his assent through the rank and file of the notorious and corrupt Illinois political environment. His carefully erected façade as a reformer, and agent of change, is shattered by a record of go-along politics in the seedy world of the Chicago machine. While corruption is found by newspapers and the federal prosecutors under every political rock, Obama has never shown an interest in reforming his own flagrantly flawed political family. Throughout his Illinois state Senate career, he was among the most loyal supporters of the machine.

For his political advancement, Obama accepted its support, benefited from its most infamous denizens, courted its criminals as his closest comrades, doled out taxpayers’ money to friends and allies, and politically endorsed the worst of them. The local old guard is hoping for Obama’s election to rid them of the Patrick Fitzgerald, the independent, incorruptible crusading U.S. Attorney, so they can return to the more salad days of cronyism, nepotism and pay-to-play politics.

Obama’s only U.S. Senate record is the number of votes he skipped. He has been an unapologetic abuser of the controversial “earmark” tradition of doling out pork.

6. When Obama moved to solidify his base in the black community, he caused a counteraction in the non-black community. The more he became perceived as the candidate of “his” people, the more he drove the non-black constituencies into the McCain camp. The problem for Obama is that this process is ongoing — likely to continue through Election Day. Obama’s defeat will undoubtedly bring outrage from the elements in the black community. There will be charges of racism. In truth, any group that votes up to 90 percent for a candidate based on their common ethnic ancestry has no credibility in accusing anyone of racism.

7. There is no doubt that Obama is woefully inexperienced and too far to the left for the average American voter. Whether he can supersede these deficiencies with platitudes and personality is the critical question. More likely his inexperience will be more glaring and his philosophy and platform more obviously unexceptable in the post-convention period. .

8. Despite the kissy face appearances on the dais, the schism between the Obama and Clinton camps has not been bridged – and will not be completely. Because they are Democrats, a lot of Clinton supporters stick to the party line for pollsters and public consumption. What they do in the voting booth is another matter. They know Hillary’s next best chance is 2012. An open nomination is in her best interest. While the percentage is debatable, there is no doubt that McCain will be harvesting from Hillary’s fields.

9. Then there are some interesting anecdotal indicators. Every day, AOL asks a campaign related question. Day after day, the answers weigh heavily against Obama – often by wide margins. It is not scientific, but the consistency of anti-Obama results and the spread in favor of McCain have to make you wonder. While most candidate-bashing books rarely find readership beyond the partisans and zealots, “The Case Against Obama” has soared to the number one best seller in the country. According to one report, the sale of anti-Obama message t-shirts are now outpacing the pro-Obama

All these seem to be minor phenomena, potentially moving only low single digit percentages – maybe even fractions of percentages. But, keeping in mind that we are a nation precariously divided, this election could be decided bye the slimmest of percentages.

While the Obama supporters are basing their claims of a landslide victory on the level of publicity, the smart money is betting on the only thing that counts – the voters. Obama will not win or lose on the basis of some grand consensus. Most likely, his much-touted victory will slip away almost imperceptibly over the next 80-some days. This year’s “October surprise” may be the emergence in the national polls of John McCain as the pre-emptive front-runner.

>OBSERVATION: Bobby Cesca needs his mouth washed out with soap

>My favorite ( <–being facetious here) left-wing radical writer, Bob Cesca, proves that no facts, no standards and no common sense will interfere with the vulgarity-laden stuff that dribbles off his pen in the Arianna Huffington “Huff ‘n Puff” Post. I assume he offers up the same inane fecal formula in his blog, which I have never been enticed to read. An occasional sampling of his putrid prose is sufficient. As bad as his perspective and opinions are, it is his immature and profane school-yard language and name calling that really sinks his writings.

His latest screed raises questions about the possibility of the excessive use of mind-altering ingestibles. He contends that the news media (or what he likes to call the “corporate news media”) is biased. No argument there. He thinks they are unfair (Okay, you ready for this?) unfair to (You’re going to laugh.) to Barack Obama. This really is his view despite all the recent impartial analysis that has shown a clear bias in favor of Obama.

Cesca accuses the press of giving John McCain undeserved positive stories, or occasionally being needlessly critical of Obama, only as an arbitrary and artificial means of maintaining “balance.” He takes the view that the long-accepted professional standard of journalistic balance is a “miscalculated rule.” According to the Cesca theory, Obama deserves massive amount of publicity, and none of it critical. McCain, on the other hand, should be shut out unless the story is negative.

In other words, in Cesca’s indoctrinated and uncritical mind, there is nothing good to say about McCain, and nothing bad to say about Obama. Sort of makes Bob’s life simple. But most of us do not live in the isolation booth of progressive thinking. To arrive at this position, I can only believe he has no skill set for intellectual objectivity.

It would appear the cause of his visceral angst is a video of reporters enjoying some relaxed interchange at a barbeque hosted by the McCains at their Arizona ranch. Civility is not a trait Cesca exhibits or appreciates. He is chagrinned that these reporters were not snarling at the McCain family as they filed stories about how the candidate burned the brats and Mrs. McCain stole the potato salad recipe from the local minister’s wife – and how these deficiencies disqualify McCain from being President. Of course, Cesca would have these stories accompanied by a sidebar praising Obama’s Beef Wellington and Michelle’s peanut butter cookies.

I suppose we can be thankful that he and his ilk are as lost in the far reaches of the left wing fog as they are. Between his sophomoric, pedantic and uninspired writing style, and his view of the world as “I am right and you are evil,” his credibility is shackled in Marley-esque chains– each op ed another link of his own making.

His too frequent reliance on the various forms of the f-word to describe and dismiss all who might diverge from his narrow and brittle view places his writing a short step above the graffiti authors, whose talentless publications adorn the men’s rooms walls across the nation. The only thing missing from Cesca’s blog offerings are the ubiquitous crude pubic drawings. One can only assume that Cesca engages in such literary self-humiliation for the attention and platform it has gained him. In that regard, I must admit that Bob has gone quite far with such little to offer.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. (sigh.)

Ed. note to Arianna Huffington: Thank you for providing space for the writings of Bob Cesca (and a few others). You are doing a great service to the nation in exposing the vapidity of contemporary radical thinking (<– oxymoron?). In addition, you use up space that might be used by those truly intellectual liberals of greater skill and persuasiveness. We appreciate.

>OBSERVATION: Bob Cesca writes more %#@*&

>Bob Cesca, who writes regularly for Arianna Huffington’s “Huff n’ Puff” Post (as I like to think of it), is the nephew of a friend of mine. Since I am convinced that any direct communication to Bobbie will do no good whatsoever, I thought a letter to his Uncle Ray might be helpful.

Dear Uncle Ray,

I fear your nephew, Bobbie, is at it again. Unfortunately, it appears that he is the son of your brother and therefore presents a significant danger to the reputation of your good family name. Let me explain.

I am not at all sure you read his recent commentary. If public policy was not my addiction, I certainly would hit the spam button. Rather, I do skim the offerings of quite a few Internet writers. His writing is like a gory accident. I really hate to look, but I do anyway. Like an unhappy toddler, he grabs attention by throwing a tantrum — verbal.

Apparently, he has not inherited your family’s cordiality, talent for articulation and thoughtfulness. In fact, having read a number of his articles, I was surprised to learn that he was actually out of high school. His logic and language are a bit … shall we say … on the sophomoric side.

And the language? Oh my! He seems to think that a point of view is enhanced by name-calling and the use of street language. He could have used some of the training I got from the old nuns and a couple good college professors. I recall on professor saying that profanity is for morons.

There is an expression that one can disagree without being disagreeable. Apparently, your loving nephew, Boobie … ooops … Bobbie … is not familiar with the concept. Rather than counter an argument, he prefers to scorch those who do not align to his thinking with baseless labels such as liars, bigots, fear mongers, etc.

In one of his most recent tirades, he referred to his adversaries (and he seems to have lots of them) as “frightened, dickless hooples,” and then made a second reference to their “dickless status.” (What is a “hooples” any way? My friends Merriam and Webster were not familiar with that word either.)

In his article, Bobbie created a delusionary ad produced by imaginary adversaries. (I know. I Know. Cheesy, but that’s our Bobbie.) The pretend advertisers were labeled in the faux ad as “frightened dickless bigots…” He seems to view “freightened” and “dickless” almost as a hyphenated word. (Uncle Ray, I think you can now see my concern about Bobbie’s phobia-castration hang-up.)

I am not sure if it is an obsession, but he is in the habit of calling his political enemies “ratfuckers.” Judging from his favorite aforementioned description of their physiology, I wonder if he knows that you need a “dick” to fuck a rat – at least I assume so. Since I am not familiar with the status of the aforementioned “dicks,” or who (or what) they are being used on, I must yield to your nephew’s apparent superior knowledge.

You know, Uncle Ray, the lad seems to be a bit paranoid, too. I mean soooooo many people and institutions that are conniving to do him harm – and only Bobbie (and a few friends) seem to think they are smart enough to know the truth. Like others on the political fringe, he seems to think he has exceptional insight and knowledge to save us all from our own mass stupidity. I guess they just don’t trust most people. We are all either evil or duped – saved only by the mercy and wisdom of Bobbie and his few friends. When he was a child, did he play well with others? I suspect not.

I would tell you more about the article itself, but between all the name calling, straw men, specious arguments and hyperbole, I can’t quite recall what it was all about. Something about Obama being a terrorist … and Giuliani being evil incarnate … and some newspaper in Pennsylvania that he either liked, or didn’t like. I can’t recall now. His screeds tend meander like a shallow river. Has he ever been tested for Attention Deficit Syndrome?

He is more like the fireplace than the candle — preferring to produce heat rather than enlightenment. I guess that is good news. Given his distorted sense of reality, maybe it is good that his opinions get lost in all the potty-mouth prose. It is easier to not take him serious.

I notice that Bobbie seems to take some strange pride in his immature, profanity-laden writing. He boastfully invites people to read what he, himself, calls his “usual outraged, profanity-laced rants.” Reminds me of my uncle, the drunk. He was a proud drunk. Always bragged about how much he drank, and the stupid things he did when we was drunk. So, I guess if someone cannot be good, they can still be proud.

Hey! Maybe for this Christmas, you can sign him for journalsim or writing course – even better if taught by old nuns. Maybe some anger management thearpy. Maybe a haircut. That “Meathead” look (left) was a cliché when they did it on Archie Bunker – before Bobbie was even born, I assume.

Oh… and make sure he knows that dispite our differing opinions, I have a very happy outlook, am fully equipped, and harbor no speical allure for rats. Just so he can find some vulgarity other than “frightened dickless ratfucker” to describe me.

Merry Christmas, Uncle Ray. And extend my best wishes to Bobbie for a very happy whatever it is he celebrates around this time of year.

>REACT: Bob Cesca wrong about right … again!


Bob Cesca, the spewer of left wing pablum (and who I recently discovered is a nephew of a friend of mine AND whose photo [right] reminds me of Meathead in the old Archie Bunker show), is one of Arianna Huffington’s opinion-by-proxy scribes. In his most recent post on her blog he proffers that Amrerica is not a right-of-center nation, as we conservatives claim, but rather a left-of-center society, as he wishfully thinks. He presents his case with all the arrogant certainty of an extreme ideologue, utilizing dubious facts, out of context quotes and twisted logic.

Of course, his brief is not compelling or convincing … because he’s wrong. America IS politically right-of-center when relevant indicators are measured objectively.

Yes, our philosophic continuum spans from left to right, but more as an internal comparative convenience than a full and absolute standard. Compared to our erstwhile friends in the European Common Market, we are a household of right wingers. Only the smallest portion of our left wing (where Cesca and Huffington exist) can compare to the more abundant liberals in many other nations. If we overlay the American philosophic continuum on the international measure, the vast majority of you good citizens are right of the global center. Hence, we are a conservative leaning nation.

Cesca bases much of his claim on the individualistic religious beliefs of the founders, and the fact that most were not very fond of the great denominations. If he wants to make a case against America as a Christian founded nation, he makes some interesting, albeit debatable, points. They are not, however, relevant to his argument in support of a liberal nation.

Even many of our self proclaimed liberals are more conservative than liberal. Blacks, for example, are among the strongest supporters of litmus test conservative causes, such as the right to life, Second Amendment gun rights, heterosexual marriage exclusivity, school voucher, tough crime measure, and so forth. Many with bedrock conservative leanings eschew the media maligned right wing label. They prefer to be known as liberal among certain peers, even as they support one conservative issue after another. A rose by any other name, is still a rose.

If we are not a right-of-center nation, then why are our policies so conservative? Why is conservative talk radio so overwhelmingly popular, while liberals cannot get their media blabbermouths into even survivable ratings range? Legislation we call liberal wouldn’t even cross the center line in the parliaments of Europe. Why do the liberals dominating Congress shrink from the left wing campaign rhetoric? I dare say it is because they know the public is not with them. They would rather risk the betrayal of their less plentiful liberal supporters than the anger of the more conservative majority. George Bush is not in trouble because of liberal oppositon to the war in Iraq, but because he lost his conservative base with his drunken sailor spending policies. (If the GOP leaders figured this out, they might have curtailed spending when they had the chance, and been poised of leadership again.)

Cesca may enjoy the self certainty of his opinion, but the facts do not support him beyond the comforting fantasies of his own mind. Like Huffington, when you are so far to the political edge, you begin to think that the small crowd around you is a mob

I wonder if his liberal bluster is just to cover up his own latent conservative thoughts? Hmmmm?