Category Archives: presidential campaign

What was wrong with Obama’s speech? Everything.

In presenting his so-called “Jobs Plan” to the Congress, President Obama was 100 percent in everything he is good at. 

1.  It was a well crafted and delivered  campaign speech — more fitting for the stomp than a joint session of the United States Congress.  There is no doubt that Obama can make a good speech.  It is hard to disagree with a lot of things he says.  However, what he does not say and what he does has little in common with his words.  This was not an exception.  It is a character trait.  He lies on a grand scale — a strategy that I suspect he learned under the tutelage of his Chicago Machine handlers.

2.  In that mode, he was naturally lacking in detail.  His repeated call for the Congress to quickly pass his self-proclaimed perfect plan before seeing if there is even a pig in the poke is outrageously arrogant.

3.  He reinforced his reputation as a strident philosophic and political partisan.  The speech was all about politics to the exclusion of economic realities.  Notice that he wants the taxpayers to provide hundreds of billions of dollars to feed money to his base, mostly the unions and government workers.  His promised assist to the millions of small businesses is a sop and any advantage will be wiped out by the negative impact of the increased debt and continuation of draconian regulations.  He is using the federal treasure and our children’s money in the hope of gaining permanent empowerment for his party and his radical left philosophy.  His unabated scheme is to make Washington and the White House more powerful at the expense of the people.

4.  He set up the same old trick that got us into this mess.   He wants to spend up to $500 billion more borrowed dollars with the claim that it is all “paid for.”  That is not just a lie, it is a dangerous and damnable lie.  According to Obama, the $500 billion will come from cuts in the envisioned increases in federal spending over the next ten years.  Under his plan, the federal budget will continue to grow, the deficit will surge to a new unfathomable level and our children and grandchildren will pay the price when the federal budget bubble bursts.  Even if he was well-intentioned, there is no way that he can guarantee that future congresses will follow through on even the cuts in proposed new spending.

5.  He played the shop worn “bleeding heart” card.  He wants to help the elderly, and children and keep teachers in the classrooms.  He carried forward the progressives’ favorite tactics — social division, class warfare and fear-mongering.  It is easy to talk about all the good things we could do with another trillion dollars or two.  But it does not take a degree in economics (and I have one, by the way) to understand that even our best intentions and most charitable instincts have to be carried out within the limits of our resources. 

So … if Obama knows all this, and I am sure he does, why does he pursue such destructive policies.  It is obvious.  His goals and objectives are purely political and partisan.  He and his ilk want to use the financial crises and public fear to gain more power for their idea of a ruling elite.  Yet!  That’s it, folks.  Remember, it was his senior advisor, Rahm Emmanuel, who opined that “no good crisis should go to waste.”

If you want to understand the Obama game, look at it this way.  let’s say I earned only enough money to pay 52 percent of my bills, so  I borrowed 48 percent of the money from the bank– and this has been going on for years until my interest payment to the bank each month is more than all my other bills.  Even though I am not sure of my income in the next ten years, I go to the bank and ask for another huge loan on top of all that I already owe — and I promise to repay them out of the additional money I hope to make in future years.  I suspect the banker would think I was stark raving mad — and I would be.  But this is exactly the Obama jobs scam.  He expects the American public to be suckers at least one more time.

>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.

>OBSERVATION: Will Obama fail to win?

>

Like the race between the tortoise and the hare, Barack Obama can out sprint the lumbering John McCain any day of the week. Thus, McCain was right when he said that the media had now written him off. Aside from a few columnists, the news corps, entertainment-as-news comics and left-wing talk show jabber mouths are back to gloating over their vision of Obama hopping over the finish line by a wide margin.

I have reluctantly surrendered to the possibility that Obama can now win, but I have not written off McCain just yet – not by a longshot.

The most interesting bewilderment about this election is why Obama is not slamdunking McCain into some neo-Goldwater status. McCain is portrayed as a geezer – and a cranky one at that. The economy has tanked. The war drags on. George Bush continues to be the increasingly unpopular dunce-in-charge. McCain and his campaign cannot seem to maintain footing on the slippery ledge of the political chasm. The veep candidate is made out to be a dizzy blond slapped with a pseudo-scandal. It even appears that the less-popular-than-Bush congressional democrats are poised for gains in both chambers.

Then there is the money. Obama, by virtue of flip flopping on public funding, is proving that his devotion to campaign finance reform is as fragile as anything and that the entire concept is fatally flawed. However, his Machiavellian switch-a-roo, augmented by some very questionable money bundling schemes, means the Illinois senator enjoys a substantial financial advantage.

Finally, there is Obama himself. A gifted speaker. Tall. Movie star handsome, with an engaging smile. Kennedyesque. He can sell anything – or more appropriately, nothing. McCain, but virtue of his age and handicaps, has the movements of a hand puppet, with a voice like the mad scientist in a horror flick.

Yet … there are those polls. No matter the situation, Obama cannot seem to breakaway from McCain. They are still sweating heavily in the Obama camp – and well they should. First, the polls are probably inaccurate. The current 10 point lead Obama sees in Ohio, for example, is just bad polling. That state will not be a blow out for Obama, if he even carries it at all.

Then there is the tendency for the Republican candidate to pick up the lion’s share of the independent votes. The notion some have, that “independent” is synonymous with “liberal,” is just wrong.

This election may see the nationalization of the Bradley Effect, which suggests that African American candidates (at least at the gubernatorial level) enjoy significantly higher polling numbers than vote totals. There is every reason to assume that this will be even more dramatic in the presidential campaign, since there has been so much accusation of racism against those who do not support Obama.

From the get-go, everyone assumed that this would be another in our modern series of close presidential elections, where anything can happen. That has not changed. Give McCain a couple good days and/or Obama a couple bad days, and the dynamic of this race completely changes.

There is always talk of an “October Surprise.” Maybe we have seen it, but cannot recognize it at the moment. Perhaps the October Surprise with how far off the current polling is. I can only say… if the polls are proven to be way off base, the truth will not be to good news for Obama.

>INSIGHT: Biden his time … for Hillary

>For a moment in time, there was question whether John McCain would replace Sarah Palin as his vice presidential partner. This seems to be mostly generated by the liberal pundits as an indirect way of exaggerating Palin’s negatives. Now cometh a more persistent backroom whisper — that Barack Obama will trade in Joe Biden for Hillary Clinton.

The rumor that is getting increasing volume in the blogosphere and among mainstream pundits is that Old Joe will resign in the few precious weeks before the election due to health reasons. They even specifically say an aneurism will be the stated malady. This would give Obama a woman, to offset the surprise and effective selection of Palin, and a former adversary a la Jack Kennedy’s selection of Lyndon Johnson.

It certainly is a most cynical theory — so cynical that it is politically feasible. (I wonder if this would be matched by Palin dumping the geriatric McCain for Mitt Romney.)

Would Obama and the Democrats go to such an extreme? Why not? The Democrats are the consummate pursuit-of-power party with an anything-to-win core philosophy. I have long suggested that Obama was unelectable. If the Obamacans and Democrat leaders did not see it quite that way over the long haul, they most certainly have come closer to my thinking since the appearance of Palin on the political platform. Maybe they now see it slipping way.

The question is … Is such a bait-and-switch too cynical for the American public. Will voters be enthralled with the progressive’s dream ticket, or revolted by the chicanery of it all. Of course, much depends on the credibility and believability of Biden’s health claim. Death would be much more convincing than some last minute infirmity of convenience, but not as easy to accomplish.

The more serious question … “Would Hillary actually help?” If not, then the strategy is nothing more than bloggers with more time than knowledge playing head games.

I think the switch is within the realm of possibility because I think the Obamacans could think Hillary would pull them out of a noise dive by checkmating Palin. However, just because they think so, does not make it so.

My own unsolicited opinion is that the Hillary gambit would backfire. Hillary looks good as the also-ran. No reason to think of those pesky Whitewater days, the IRS lists and the stolen White House china. The Clintons are intriguing personalities, but that does not mean that 51 percent of the voting public would like to see them in office again. In some ways, they are political O.J. Simpsons. Their every move generates a celebrity fascination, but behind that, we all know they did it.

If Palin was the “carrot’ to motivate the conservative base, Hillary is just the stick that would whip the right wing into a rabid campaign frenzy.

Furthermore, the suddenly more serious and intense vetting of the Clintons (yes, both of them) would likely lead to the exposure of a number of troublesome issues that will lay dormant as long as they are sideliners. In addition to a re-examination of all those Clinton era accusations and findings, there are more contemporary matters. Her senate fundraising activities have not been without controversy. And then there are Bill’s post-presidency wheelings and dealings with Middle East potentates and liaisons of a more personal nature.

Hillary would do to Obama, what Palin did for McCain. She would shunt him off to the sidetrack of media attention. While the ham-handed McCain needed the temporary diversion of public attention, the charismatic Obama cannot afford to be taken off message in the all-critical final days of this very long, long campaign.

Also, standing next to the Clintons (yes, both of them), Obama would appear diminished — less like a president. He would become the Sarah Palin of is own campaign — a breakthrough novelty who seems a wee bit short of experience. This is a more serious problem for him because he is applying for the boss’s position, not the assistant.

Then there is the question of breaking the racial barrier and glass ceiling at the same time. Is that just too much progress for the nation at one time. Could be.

Maybe Obama thinks this is a way to flip a losing campaign into a winning effort. I can also see Hillary buying in on the hope of preventing Palin from shattering through the ceiling many credit Clinton with cracking.

With the American electorate being so closely divided, it is not easy to forecast the results of such a dramatic turn of events — especially with the potential of other issues, such as Iraq and the economy, to produce their own dramatic surprises.

However, my gut tells me the Hillary maneuver would fail. Instead of boosting Obama’s currently rattling rocket, it may cause a complete flame out. There were many good reasons Hillary was not choosen in the first place, and all those good reasons are still lurking beneath the surface just waiting for the chance to be bite Obama in the butt.

>REACT: Obama takes the lowest of the low roads to mock McCain physical disabilities

>As a political junkie, I am rather sick of the “gotcha” brand of politics – which I blame mostly on the press. If the reporters and editors did not dwell on statements that can be made to look like gaffes, the politicians would stop reacting the way they do. I don’t think Barack Obama was insulting Sarah Palin personally when he used the well worn metaphor of “lipstick on a pig.” I don’t think Palin was war mongering when she said Georgia’s inclusion in NATO could place America in potential military confrontation with Russia. She is not wrong. That is what the alliance is about.

When McCain jested about his Iran policy by singing “bomb … bomb … bomb … bomb, bomb Iran” to the tune of the old rock song, “Barbara Ann,” the Democrats tried to have it taken as a serious policy statement. It was a joke. Hellooooo. JOKE. The McCain bashers decided it was tasteless. Actually, I thought it was just funny. I did not take it as a serious policy statement.

I don’t think John McCain’s snide comment about how many houses he has any bearing on his capability to be president. His wife’s wealth is immaterial. Presidential candidates are millionaires, Obama included. Kerry married the Heinz ketchup heiress – who got the money when her Republican husband, John Heinz, was killed in a plane crash. Who is richer than the Kennedys, whose family fortune came originally from rum running during Prohibition? Al Gore was the privileged son of one of the wealthiest families in Tennessee. Even with those who claim to have risen from poverty, the rise was very early in their lives. There are no giant leaps from pauper to president in American history – at least not in modern times.

We recently had one of the worst examples of such meaningless accusations I have even seen – or could have imagined. This one deserves attention because it brings gotcha politics to a new low. The Obama camp put out an ad seizing on the fact that McCain said he cannot use emails – interpreted by Obama as evidence that McCain’s technical deficiency disqualifies him from the presidency.

In making this specious argument, Obama heartlessly ignores the fact — well enough known that there is no way team Obama can plead ignorance — that war prison torture has left McCain (right, after release from POW camp –note bandaged hands) incapable of typing. He also cannot raise his arms high enough to comb his hair or bend over far enough to tie his shoes. He is a physically handicapped person, whose limitations are cruelly mocked relentlessly by the left wing. Furthermore, there is no need for a President of the United States to have to write his own emails. It is almost crazy to think he should. And this mockery comes from those who idolize the wheelchair-bound Franklin Roosevelt. Such cruel hypocrisy.

In view of the well-established media bias and lust for the latest gotcha, it will be interesting to see how the press handles this outrageous breech of decency. I suspect they will largely ignore this one in favor of some contrived interpretation of an off handed remark or joke by McCain or Palin.

>OBSERVATION: Maybe we should be scared

>To innoculate against future GOP attacks, the Barack Obama campaign and its minions on the progressive left are forwarning against the use of scare tactics. I suppose, saying that the country will be harmed irreparably, social securty will evaporate, and you will lose you jobs and your homes if John McCain is elected is NOT a scare tactic? Puleeeeez! It is nothing more than a case of the pot calling the kettle black. (<–Some how that expression takes on a little different meaning this season. Maybe is is some of that "code" language the paranoid left hears in evey utterance.) Don't buy into scare tactics, they tell us, but maybe we should be scared. As I got to thinking about the forces that have been the booster rockets of the Obama campaign, there are four — and they bother me a lot.

First is the corrupt Democrat machine of Chicago. There is nothing in Obama’s past that would support his newly created image as a man above partisan politics — a reformer. In fact, he is a strident partisan with deep loyalty to the political gang who launched his career in the Land of Lincoln. He has been supported and tutored by some of the most ruthless and brittle Democrat partisan in the nation, not the least of which are Mayor Richard Daley (left), Governor Rod Blagojevich, Senator Dick Durbin, Congressman Rahm Emanuel, Congresswomen Jan Schankowski and Illinois Senate President Emil Jones.

Second, he comes from the radical left school where racist black liberation theology, as espoused by his friend and pastor, Jeremiah Wright (lower left), is considered a legitimate religion, and his tactical political views are influenced by his admiring friendship with deadly terrorists such as William Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dorhn (left).

Third, the mission to take over the White House by the radical left is being funded by an obsessed billionaire, George Soros (right). This is a man determined, and willing to use billions of dollars of his own money (and billions more of his friend’s money) to impose a regime that otherwise would have little popular appeal. Never in the histroy of this nation, has one man had the resources, and the lust, to impose a personal President. Without George Soros, the radical progressive movement in America would exist only on the fringe, where they belong.

Lastly, as the first African American candidate (sort of), Obama benefits from black racism (some say reverse racism). He will carry the votes of more than 90 percent of the self identified black voters, even though his views on guns, abortion and school choice — just to name a few — are counter to the cultural values in the community. Issues and what is good for America are beyond any consideration — trumped by skin color. The plea of Whitney Young, who said people should be judged “not on the color of their skin, but the content of their character,” is being ignored. Whether successful or not, Obama will leave America more divided than he found it.

For each of these constitutencies, Obama is the perfect candidate — a brutally partisan black elitist leftist. But he has an overarching quality that is rare among the extreme left. He is a charmer. Most of his ilk are snarling pit bulls without lipstick. They generally lack the boyish charm and charisma that Obama exudes.

We are always on guard against the wolf in sheep skin. Maybe we have been fooled a bit because we did not anticipate that the disguise would be the skin of a black sheep.

>NEED TO KNOW: Obama’s mud machine targets Palin

>For all the sanctimonious rhetoric, you can count on Barack Obama’s Chicago style campaign to do their own version mudslinging — indirectly, of course. The sharks of the liberal media are on a feeding frenzy, and for a while they will churn the waters hoping to produce blood. More likely, they will silently swim away in search of other opportunities, having seen their prey either escape or prove to be to formidable a target.

If you want insight into the campaigns marching orders to the media, you only need to read the Dems 63-page comprehensive attack sheet on Sarah Palin. You can read it here thanks to a screw up in the campaign counterintelligence system. This “anonymous” document surfaced for a moment in time on the Internet — on one of those Obama-friendly web sites. It has since been removed, but some good guy computer whizzes were able to access an undeleted back-up copy.

Given the amount of research that has gone into this document, and the extent to which they have gone to try to bring Palin down (including distortions, misinformation and outright lies), it is obvious she has rattled the foundation of their campaign strategy.

>UPDATE: Hillary’s voters.

>In a previous blog, I suggest that as much as 15 percent of Hillary Clinton’s primary voters could cross over to John McCain. I thought I was being a bit optimistic, but calcualted even five percent as a serioius problem for Barack Obama. Well … was I wrong. A recent poll indicated that as many as 25 percent of the New York senator’s primary support will not vote for Obama. Wow! That is more than a disaster for Obama. That’s the ballgame.

Now granted, they may not all be crossing over for McCain. The poll did not identify cross overs and the stay at homes. Regardless, that is an amazing defection.

It should be noted that the poll was taken after the Clintons’ — Mr. and Mrs. — speeches at the Democratic convention, and before the naming of Sarah Palin as McCain’s running mate. Can it get much worse?

This all tracks with my unwavering belief that Obama is unelectable without a major … and I mean major … blunder on the McCain side.

>REACT: McCain’s pick for Veep shows he know something about change.

>If the port side progressive pundits are sounding a bit “dizzy” these days, it is due to the exceptional amount of “spinning” they are doing to make it sound like all news vis-a-vis Barack Obama is good news. If John McCain’s continuing good standing in the polls have them stammering, trying to dis his choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President has them totally flummoxed.

Even before the stories were filed on Obama’s elaborately staged and well delivered superficial acceptance speech, McCain trumped the junior senator from Illinois with the history making announcement naming Alaska Governor Palin as his running mate – proving that Democrats are not the only ones who can make history. While the Obama folks expected the media and the public to savor the acceptance speech at least through the weekend, McCain held the exposure to less than 24 hours. By noon on Friday, the speech was old news. It was a brilliant tactical move.

Palin will also be a strong draw for those Hillary supporters, who feel that the ladies have been cheated by the slick talking black dude. This is a net gain. And, judging from the Vogue cover, a lot of Democrat guys maybe jumping ship. All things considered, Palin is the hottest vice president candidate in history.

In picking Palin, McCain made it impossible for the Democrats to chew up the Alaskan governor without eating their young. For the party that claims modern day feminism as one of their defining issues, it was interesting to see how they would maintain the integrity of their cause while vilifying the second female candidate for Vice President – and the first with a real chancing of holding the office.

It was sort of easy to predict their tactic. It is one they have used against African Americans who do not stick to the liberal, welfare-is-good party line. They simply declare them to be apostates. In the case of black conservatives, they are “uncle toms.” When the very African American Congressman Gary Franks (R-CN) was elected to Congress, the all liberal — and hitherto Democrat — Black Caucus” barred him from membership. He was not black enough for them. When the courts said the Caucus had to admit him since they were really a tax-free not-for-profit public corporation, they disbanded the group. In liberal America, blackness is an opinion, not an ethnic reality.

In the case of Palin, they are saying, “Women, yes, but not THAT GIRL. (I can hear the old Marlo Thomas television theme song playing in my ear). These kinds of reactions are always good reminders that the feminism movement that dominates the headlines and public discourse, is NOT about women. No. No. No. Modern day feminism is limited to the issues and personalities advanced by the liberal ladies of the Democrat party. Glass ceiling shattering is only allowed for those women with liberal credentials and agendas.

With Palin as the candidate, the vice presidential debate suddenly poses a problem for Joe Biden. Obama was figuring on have old Joe be a junkyard dog, sinking his teeth into the hind quarters of any one of the touted white male Republican contenders. As is often the case, the presence of a woman can turn the fiercest hound into a lap dog. If Biden gets too tough on the gentler sex, he will come across as a bully. He might as well go to the debate in a Marlon Brando “wife beater” undershirt. On the other hand, a woman “standing up” to a man wins a chorus of “atta girl”s.

The criticism I enjoy the most is Palin’s alleged “lack of experience.” Every time a leading Democrat cites her relative newness on the larger political stage, the name Barak Obama keeps popping into my head. McCain has laid a trap for the Democrats, and they are jumping into it with both feet.

Arguably, Obama does not have much more experience than she does – even less if you match executive experience against legislative experience. She presides over a major government. Obama has never managed anything larger than a small personal staff. Now if you have inexperience on the ticket, is it better to be lacking in the Vice President or the President. In a less than subtle move, McCain has shown that the Democrats got the experience requirement backward.

Perhaps the most desperate and idiotic criticism I heard came from David Bender, of (hot) Air America. He blasts Palin because, in his opinion, she does not look like a Vice President. (I am not making this up. Sexist, you say? Shallow, you say? Chauvinistic, you say?) As a woman, is she any more or less vice presidential than Geraldine Ferraro? Oh! I get it. Palin is not eastern seaboard. Not a limousine liberal … hell … not even a liberal. And the Dems wonder why they can’t shed their elitist image? This silly argument doesn’t backfire. It ricochets to Obama. He, himself, said that HE doesn’t look like those guys on the money. (Again, thinking about the Vogue cover … mmmm …. oh yeah … Bender is right. Palin most certainly does not look like any previous vice presidential candidate. She’s more likely to get wolf whistles than cat calls).

The Obama team gets it. They’re not saying anything negative about Palin, even in the instant response advertising. But those self-appointed Obama’s spokespersons blabbering to the press are falling into McCain’s trap en masse – and Obama is tethered to them like the last mountain climber still on the ledge.

>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.