Category Archives: george bush

Nothing Noble about the Nobel Prize for Obama

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama is not about his accomplishments in advancing world harmony. He has none. In fact, his continuation of the war in Iraq — despite his campaign promises — his expansion of the war in Afghanistan, his appropriate threats against Iran’s nuclear program and the unveiling of America’s newest super bomb would have brought George Bush the derision of the left-wing Nobel committee.

Why then the prize?

It is quite simple. The Nobel folks did not award Obama the Prize in recognition of any accomplishments, but as a means of promoting his embrace of their “after America” global view in which the United States is only a participant in an international collective, not a noble leader. The Obama doctrine repudiates the concepts of America as an inspiring beacon of democracy, as well as the traditional “America first” perspective of his 42 predecessors. Not since President Franklin Pierce secretly aligned with the Confederacy has a president stood in such opposition to the fundamentals of America.

Obama’s increase in world popularity results from his decision to build himself into a global personality at the expense of a weaker America, political and economically. From community organizer to President of the United States, Obama has always found comfort with the critics of America — not just differences over policy, but a repudiation our fundamental concepts of limited government, personal freedom and free market capitalism. In many ways, he is the anti-Reagan.

The awarding of this year’s Prize does not reflect Obama’s accomplishments, but reveals in stark clarity the vehemently anti-American view of the Oslo committee. To have them in premature praise and promotion of this President ought to have us significantly concerned about what they find so appealing about him.

The Lion of the Senate will roar no more

On the passing of Ted Kennedy, we are being deluged with nothing short of a canonization obituaries – as if extreme praise will obliterate the facts of his personal history. The Kennedy family, their circle of friends and the press have always been treated like royalty. The occasions of their lives are always cast as some seminal historic event. Only the gods of Olympus could equal Kennedy’s thundering oratory.

Certainly, Kennedy was a powerful senator, and a political tour de force. I give him that much. I will also respect the left’s affection for a man who carried the standard for so many of their causes.

But there is the other reality. The man had the personal ethics of a back alley crap shooter. Throughout most of his life he was noted for his lapses, not his achievements. He got into Harvard not on the merits of his intellect or academic achievement, but simply due to the pocketbook of his parents – a practice that has brought scandal down on the University of Illinois system. He was bounced out of Harvard twice for cheating. Daddy’s money took care of that.

He was both cowardly and criminal in leaving the scene of an accident that cost the life of MaryJo Kopechne. He ran from the scene in an attempt to conceal his involvement. He called family and political aides before police and medics. Reports suggest that the young lady had enough air trapped in the submerged vehicle to have survived a rescue. One judge said outright that the late senator was the cause of MaryJo’s death. By all accounts, the distinguished senator from Massachusetts was guilty of vehicular homicide. Again the Kennedy money thwarted justice and accountability.

He destroyed is first marriage, and almost destroyed his first wife, with womanizing, drunkenness and belligerence. His fame and financial contributions to a corrupt Catholic Church system bought him a unique annulment after a long consummated marriage with children – and disrespect to the Church that genuflected to the Kennedy power and wealth.

While his office issued central casting photos of a handsome statesman with flowing white hair, the tabloids had a field day showing the real Ted Kennedy as a blubberous drunken sot cavorting with an endless string of women.

The man dubbed as the “Lion of the Senate” by a fawning gallery of liberal leaders was really more of an alley cat.

He slowed down in later years, his body somewhat ravaged by decades of abuse. Once it was obvious the Kennedy clan had no inherited right to the Oval Office, and his flaws were great to win public acceptance as the nation’s leader, Kennedy seemed to focus on his career almost exclusively. Perhaps there was a moment of epiphany — a redemption that somehow escaped the Kennedy public relations machine. I hope so. I hope he found his way to heaven. I really do. But that does not mean I find his departure from this mortal shore an uncompromised loss. It still could be that he took more from this world than he gave.

It is ironic that the Democrats should lose his voice and his vote as Congress comes to a moment of truth on Kennedy’s trademark issue – nationalized healthcare.

May he rest in peace.

FOOTNOTE: One way to look at the excessive attention given the Kennedys is to look a political family with an equally impressive record of public service – the apparently more humble Bush family. Old Prescott was a U.S. Senator for Connecticut. His son, George H., was in Congress, headed the CIA, served as ambassador to China, Vice President and then President of the United States. In the third generation, George W. was in Congress, then Governor of Texas and on to the White House. George W.’s brother served as Governor of Florida. The Kennedy advantage in gaining public attention may be due to monumental ego, dysfunctionality to the point of repeated scandal, and liberal bonefides that turned the press and historians in to flaks.

>REACT: McClellan endorses Obama … figures.

>After publishing a shameless back-stabbing book about his patron and employer, former George Bush Press Secretary, Scott McClellan (left … oh … that’s a weasel. An honest mistake.), has poked both his faces out from under the rock to endorse Barack Obama.

Why is it that Obama seems to attract the support of such low lifes? I mean … Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et al. What do these people see in him?

If you have already forgotten who McClellan is … or was … he is the guy you saw explaining George Bush to the press. He was a shoe-licking lackey. Once his fifteen minutes of fame expired, he published an embellished account of his days in the White House. If his harsh criticism were even half true, you have to wonder why he hung around the place until he was booted. Well … now he found a way to add a couple more minutes of fame.

Let me make it clear that I do not think every cross-party endorsement is political treason. Joe Lieberman and Colin Powell have both endorsed the candidate of the “other” party. These are part pragmatic and part heartfelt. McClellan is just a sleaze.

>REACT: Book burning Bush should be burned

>According to the press, the book is a sensation. “Former George Bush loyalists turns on him,” is the generic headline.

Seems like one-time White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has poison penned a tome that scoops shovels full of insider dirt on the President and his key advisors. The book will be a HUGE success in the hands of the gleeful left wing literati and media establishment. The liberal talk show circuit will be filled with “we told you so” bleating.

Now, I know Bush is a bit of a dunce. His presidency is a failure whether you view it from the right or the left. His approval rating suggests that even his mother may be turning on him. Yep! He blew it. No question about it.

However … don’t you feel a little queasy reading McClellan’s slashing account of his former boss? There is something in the human soul (a good something) that makes us distain backstabbers.

This is a guy who got his career from the beneficence of George Bush. He was sending the Bush White House message to the world. He was their flack … their mouthpiece … their spinner. Now he writes a self-serving diatribe against his padrone.

And why? To enlighten and warn the public about the inner workings of the Bush administration in the last few months of its existence? Nooooooooo! He does it solely and selfishly for … yeah … money, and maybe another fifteen minutes in the public eye. In the old street parlance, the guy’s a ratfink.

Oh yeah! There is that other reason. Maybe a little payback for the President recognizing that McClellan was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. It is also true that the high political family were not given the political status they thought they deserved.

What really galls is that he uses the tell-all format to kick a guy while he’s down. With a writer’s precision and prerogative, McClellan absolves himself of any complicity and culpability. Oh yeah! He was the oracle espousing the bull dung. But, he was misinformed by those meanies like Karl Rove, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney. (This is where you are supposed to shed a tear for poor ole Scott).

McClellan would like us to believe that he is an honorable and truthful man, victimized by those above him. I’m not buying it. He was part of the schemer team, the key spin advisor. If the White House was dishing out bad stuff, McClellan was more than a waiter delivering it to the public table. He was at least a sous chef.

I think the sleazy nature of this guy can be seen in accusing Karl Rove and Scooter Libby or comparing notes to get their story straight regarding the outing of Valerie Plame as a CIA undercover agent. McClellan says he hates to report this particular incident because he was not privy to the conversation between Rove and Libby. So, why does he write about it?

In the book McClellan says that after a senior staff meeting, Rove asked Libby to meet with him privately. Libby agreed, and they went off to another room.

That’s it. Two White House staffers, go off for a private conversation, and McClellan scurrilously surmises that they are engaging in a sinister conversation to concoct mutual alibis in the Plame case. Why else would the want to meet in private?, McClellan asks. Oh … I don’t know. But, I bet there are at least a few hundred issues of mutual interest – and that does not count personal matters like setting up a golf date. And even if they did want to discuss the Plame problem, it is not exactly illegal. In this, McClellan elevates “cheap shot” to a whole new level of meaning. No matter what you think of these guys, this is just wrong.

He still claims to respect the President. How phoney can a guy be? His words exude animus and vitriol in every paragraph.

If the Bush administration was trying to sell a bad product, McClellan was the hawker-in-chief. Perhaps it was his ability to recycle trash that provided him with the skill and the motivation to write trash. If George Bush was not exactly his role model, McClellan can always look to Benedict Arnold and Judas Iscariot.

>OBSERVATION: Vermont … stranger than fiction.

>I seem to be having a fixation with Vermont. You will recall, I previously have written about the effort but the good people of Brattleboro to have President Bush and Vice President Cheney arrested for “high crimes and misdemeanors” against the sacred U.S. Constitution. Never mind that such an arrest warrant would be … uh … unconstitutional.

Item #1: Prisons trump schools

Well, now I understand their zeal to incarcerate the Commander-in-Chief and his sidekick. Seems like bucolic maple syrup center of the world is also one of only four states that spends more money on imprisonment than they do on education. That’s right. That sappy (how ever you wish to interpret the word) New England state would rather see their future generation behind bars than behind books.

Since lack of education is a major contributor to criminal behavior, you can see why the leaders of Brattleboro would do something illegal in the hopes of adding to their prison population. For them, it’s a win-win.

Item #2: Ben and Jerry are from Vermont … figures!

I must admit, in my past writing about the quirky state of Vermont, I failed to connect the state with Ben and Jerry, the quirky ice cream-as-politics duo. I should have guessed.

They recently donated an Obamamobile (picture) to the Illinois senator’s campaign. The idea is to drive around handing out their frozen products in an effort to induce citizens to vote of Obama. In my amazingly corrupt home state of Illinois, we used to give derelicts (now known as” the homeless”) a pint of cheap booze to influence their vote. I guess ice cream is more acceptable to the gentle folks of Vermont. While Chicago was famous for “saloon politics,” I guess Vermont is building its reputation on “ice cream parlor politics.”

The Obamamobile is a variation of their “cowmobile.” I guess they are hoping Obama catches fire, which is exacly what happened to their cowmobile … literally. Yep! Ice cream flambe.
All this stuff ties together. Ben and Jerry, in there roles as left-wing political activists, were responsible for 70,000 postcards being sent to Congress in support of the national Children’s Defense Fund. Now … see the connection? Of course they focus on children’s defense since their fellow Vermonters spend more money on incarceration than education. In Vermont, the kids need lawyers more than teachers.

Item #3: Ice cream soda versus scotch and soda.

Vermont wants to lower the drinking age. I am not kidding.

State Senator Hinda Miller sees it this way. “Our laws aren’t working. They’re not preventing underage drinking. What they’re doing is putting it outside the public eye. So you have a lot of kids binge drinking. They get sick, they get scared and they get into trouble and they can’t call because they know it’s illegal.”

If I am understanding her reasoning, Hinda thinks it is better to see a lot of intoxicated kids in public rather than deal with only those who would imbibe illegally in private.

This would certainly cut down the crime rate in Vermont. Perhaps they could use some of the savings to fund education. Better yet, they could send consolation money to the families of the highway accident victims. Did they forget that a lot of carnage on the interstate is due to teen drinking? It is of little consequence to the victims and their families to know that the teenager behind the wheel was drinking legally.

I wonder what Ben and Jerry think about all this. After all, the mint swirl will give way to the mint julep, and rocky road will be the real highway and not a chocolate treat.
Honest to God! There must be something in that maple syrup that interfers with cognitive thinking.

>REACT: Campaign has reached its nadir… oh… Nader.

>”Stop the presses!!!” Hmmm. I need to be more modern. “Download the story!!!” Ralph Nader has announced his intention to run for President of the United States … again.

Now we truly have history in the making. We can choose from the oldest white guy ever elected President, or the first guy who looks more African American then he is, or the first female who looks more butch than she is, or now the first left winger who looks more sane than he is.

If New York Mayor David Bloomberg gets into the melee, we would have the first Jewish guy AND someone how could promise to pay off a significant portion of the national debt from his personal checking account. And with Nader mucking up things (as a good muckraker should), maybe Bloomberg will take a look. I mean, it is better to have been at least a presidential candidate than end your political career as mayor of the Big Apple. Even Rudy Giuliani knew that much. Look where he is in the fame game compared to John Lindsay, Ed Koch and David Dinkins. Who are these guys? Exactly! (I pictured David Dinkins because I doubt anyone remembers the poor chap).

But … this is Nader’s day. Already the Democrat political handlers and candidates are reaching for the aspirin or the gin bottle. They’re still pretty perturbed over what they consider Nader’s gift of the presidency to George Bush in 2000 — a least when then are not heaping venom on the Supreme Court. Without Nadar, they say Florida and the White House would truly have gone to Al “The Weatherman” Gore.

Nader does not care. He is a bipartisan hater. There is no redeeming value to either the GOP or the Democrat party. Only HE can save this nation from the clutches of corporate America. He is the candidate of the labor-acracy. His only problem is that while he champions the causes of the barons of organized labor, they, too, think he is more than an annoying nut case. If he loathes both political donkeys and elephants equally, one can wonder why he always goes out to kill the donkey. He must be more like the donkey since all my Democrat friends refer to him as a jackass.

If Nader’s constituency were as big as his ego and arrogance, he would be ending his eight-year residency in the White House. Maybe not. I suspect by now he would have scratched out the Twenty-Second Amendment that limits presidential terms.

The only thing that makes Nader at all interesting is the fact that in all probability this will be another close election. We are a nation divided. While most voters will shun Nader, as they did in 2004, a razor thin outcome could … just could … make Nader a two-time spoiler.

I say “spoiler” because it is the term of art, but frankly the Nader campaign of 2000 did not spoil MY election day. Yes, he is a nut. And yes, I think his whole platform sucks. And yes, I do not think there is a snowball’s chance in Hades that he can even come close to winning. If he can get past two percent, however, he could be up for the 2008 Ross Perot Award. So, I say to Ralph Nader. “God speed and good luck.”

>REACT: Brattleboro gunning for Bush and Cheney

>Just when you think the folks in Brattleboro, Vermont cannot get any nuttier, they out do themselves. You will recall from my earlier blog that the Kurt Daims is leading a movement to have the town issue an arrest warrant for George Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against the Constitution. In most communities, I suppose he would qualify as the proverbial “village idiot.” But, not in Brattleboro. In fact, he is a bit of a community leader, now having persuaded the Selectboard to buy into his fantasy.

Of course, the Brattleboro town attorney has no authority to write up the indictment and arrest warrant. The police have no legal authority to pick up the Prez even if he were to get lost on the highway and wind up in Brattleboro by accident. The whole idea is unconstitutional, according to the Vermont Attorney General.

I sort of like the irony of the disregarding the Constitution to file a petition against the President for … disregarding the Constitution. So, if it passes, should the people of Brattleboro go arrest themselves?

Showing that Brattleboro is without a firewall of sanity anywhere to be found, the selectboard (photo) has voted to put the measure on the ballot. I suspect that the vote was mostly intended to get little lost Brattleboro some national attention – like a child acting badly.

According to AOL News, Brattleboro is getting a lot of nasty emails and phone calls sprinkled with suchs words as “nuts” and “wackjobs.” The emailers wonder if the good people of Brattleboro have been standing out in the cold too long, or if something has seeped into the town water supply. Personally, I am betting on a bad crop of maple syrup.

No all this reaction has some town’s folk mighty worried. Town Clerk Annette Cappy said that they “have some concerns about safety. After reading some of these emails, you can’t help it.”

Of course, no one can overreact like a town constable with very little to do. Police Chief Eugene Wrinn promised that any threats against the town or people of Brattleboro would be taken seriously. Fortunately, Wrinn can keep his pistol holstered since no threats have been received. Whew!

Because it is a meaningless insult to the President, Vice President and common sense, I suspect the media will enjoy giving Brattleboro’s referendum more publicty than a Paris Hilton fashion mishap.
I think this is one of those situations where the President looks better by the character of his enemies. But, ya gotta love a country were a guy like Daims and the people of Brattleboro can parlay nothing but cold winters, nice scenery and succulent sap into 15 minutes of fame on the national stage. In their case, maybe only three and a half minutes.

>REACT: The battle of Brattleboro

>Kurt Daims, of Brattleboro, Vermont, is passing a petition to require his town’s selectboard to have George Bush and Dick Cheney indicted and arrested as war criminals should either of them ever set foot in Battleboro. (Do not be overly concerned, Vermont is the only state Bush has NEVER visited. Not likely he will find any reason in the future.)

Before we address the merits of the issue in more detail, it is first important to understand that Vermont is the closest we come to a national asylum. The folks there take such pride in be different that they almost qualify as an alien culture. I sometimes use the term “left-leaning loonies” in a figurative sense. In Vermont it has literal meaning. On the other hand, I love living in a country that people are free to be … ah … shall we say … peculiar?

Peculiar? Consider this. Vermont has the most active secessionist movement in America. As far as I can tell, the only thing preventing their departure from the Union is the rest of us being unwilling to pay foreign import fees for the maple syrup – their only discernible asset.

Granted, Vermont is a beautiful state, and well worth a visit – as long as you are not under some silly indictment for your political views and can put up with their favorite pastime – self congratulations. If you find a normal person from Vermont, chances are they are too new (less than three generations) to be fully indoctrinated or they only have a vacation home there.

The Vermont Attorney General said that Daims’ law would not be legal. Daims, a retired factory worker, disagrees. Rest assured that petty issues like legality is not likely to dissuade any of those hard line left-wing “green mountain” boys. Daims likens his petition to the Declaration of Independence, no less.

Occasionally, Vermont-itis flares up in other areas. I recall my once-hometown of Evanston, Illinois passing a resolution declaring the suburban community a “nuclear free zone.” Churches and a few residents even put up signs affirming their declaration. These are the kinds of things I refer to as “civic masturbation.” They have no discernible benefit other than making the person feel good at the time.

All this has resulted in me adding another listing to “Larry’s Laws of Life.” “Never move into a town that has a national or foreign policy.” They tend to be too busy doing the business of Congress or the United Nations to deliver basic services.

At the opening of this blog item, I promised to deal in with the merits of Daims’ petition drive. There are none.

>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?