Christie President? fuggedboutit

November 20, 2012 § Leave a comment

Would New Jersey Governor Chris Christie be a viable candidate for President in 2016? He might, depending on what he does between now and two years from now when we start the next Presidential election debacle. But asking that question isn’t relevant, at least not now. Within the Republican party, those who have a say in who, what, where and when, say he ain’t got no chance, as they say in Hoboken.

Christie was ticked that Romney didn’t come begging that Christie be his running mate. In fact, Mitt considered Christie along with numerous others, but it never even got to the vetting stage. Romney threw the big man a bone by giving him the keynote. The New Jersey Governor was in no position to turn it down because it would be very obvious that he was pouting, not a good thing for the tough guy running a state filled with enough mafia types to fill half a dozen MetLife Stadiums.

So Christie did his keynote – about himself. That got a lot of important Republicans to wondering about their future wonder boy. But Chris stumped for Mitt, so maybe there wasn’t a problem after all. But then, in the aftermath of hurricane Sandy, Christie did a love-in with Godfather Obama and kissed both his cheeks, if you catch my meaning here. How about just, “thank you, Mr. President, I’m sure everyone in the state appreciates that you will expedite aid to help us rebuild”. Instead, he did everything but hump the President’s leg. Sure the state needed aid and sure Obama is an arrogant egomaniac who needs constant love to get through his day, but Christie didn’t have to drop his pants.

Christie was all ‘golly-gee I got to ride on Obama’s helicopter’. Wowee.

To anyone who is so naive to think that Christie’s performance didn’t cost Romney some votes, I am offering some New Jersey beach front property that has just come on the market. Didn’t use to be beachfront and hopefully it won’t stay that way for long.

Now with thousands of New Jersyites without homes or those who have homes, still without power, what does da big cahoona do? Yucks it up on Saturday Night Live. You can bet that went over big with people who have to burn their furniture to keep warm.

Christie has also shot off his mouth about why Romney lost and accused him essentially of being whiney about losing. Romney, on the other hand, had enough class to not criticize Christie’s hug-in.

Lots of Republicans are not happy with this kind of mouthing off when it comes to talking about the people on your side. It’s akin to, say, a President who denigrates his own nation while on foreign soil. Family members can bitch among themselves, but outside the family, you are all for one.

Right now, Christie is off the contenders list in the Republican establishment. We’ll see if he can redeem himself in the meantime.

Advertisements

Would Hugo Chavez be better for America?

November 7, 2012 § Leave a comment

People with a love of good old-fashioned American values have gone into mourning. We woke up November 7, to the fact that what might have been –  a new president with the knowledge, talent and integrity to give us back the hard-working, free enterprise America we have always had – was not to be. Instead, we will face four additional years of a sociopathic thug president whose favorite word is “I”, his fondest desire to remake the country into a socialistic second-rate European type state and absolute cluelessness about leadership.

“Never missing an opportunity to address the nation, he accuses business leaders of living lavishly, has frequently clashed with church leaders, implemented a number of social programs including health services for all, yet with all the country’s oil reserves, poverty has increased and unemployment is at all time highs.” This was written (paraphrased) about President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

So we have our own smaller and less competent Hugo Chavez, but with a lot more ships, fewer bayonets and a smarmy side-kick with a smirk.The biggest differences are that Chavez is smart enough to exploit his country’s oil deposits, doesn’t suck up to Latinos, is honest about being a socialist and never, ever bows to the leaders of other countries.

We have our own version of a Hugo Chavez. Just smaller as a leader. Smaller at getting things done. A sort of Hugo mini-me for another term. But we need to step back and put this in perspective. Maybe there isn’t exactly a silver lining to this re-election disaster, there are some things to consider as you put a little extra alcohol into that drink you so desperately need.

First, it’s only four more years. But, you say, look at the damage he did in his first four years. True, but he did the majority of his destruction while he had a congressional stacked deck. We cannot on one hand, consider him an incompetent, which he truly is, and on the other, believe “I” has the ability to accomplish miracles, even though he reminds us daily, that he is Commander-in-Chief. But you sir, are no Hugo Chavez.

He now must make a deal with the Republican leadership regarding sequestration and the Ibama monster debt. “I” has to deal. There is no other option. He’s not running for another term so trying to position Republicans as obstructionists who are holding the country hostage doesn’t accomplish anything.  Ibama, who reminds us that he is Commander-in-Chief, will no longer be in permanent re-election campaign mode and he will realize that he is now going to be judged, not for his ability to denigrate Republicans in order to have a campaign narrative, but for his ability to lead. Lots of luck with that.

Members of the Republican caucus will be nervous about the mid-terms, but Speaker Boehner is far more concerned about the tea party and his own legacy than to let a bunch of whiners sway him. He also believes that doing the right thing is the right thing to do. Refreshing thought given the philosophy of the Chavez wannabe in the  White House. The Speaker might cut some deal regarding taxes in, but it will come as reform and not tax cuts on the very people who make our economy run.

Ibama, on the other hand, with tremendous pressure to mitigate disaster to the economy and perhaps coming to understand that he is seen as an incompetent negotiator, will fold and give the conservatives a lot, if not most of what they want and then brag how he – “I” – worked out a deal. After all, he is Commander-in-Chief.

Ok, then there’s Ibamacare. There’s been a lot of talk that if Ibama were re-elected, we would never be able to get rid of it. I truly believe that we will have Republicans in control of the government by 2016. There are two possible paths; either keep the House and then gain veto proof majority in the Senate, or keep the House, gain in the Senate and win the Presidency. All very doable after the country has endured eight years of a dithering, egomaniacal president with golf, lavish vacations and celebrity filled parties as his main priorities.

There’s a lot that a Republican controlled government can do to that garbage piece of legislation we call Obamacare to emasculate it and maybe even make it somewhat acceptable and less damaging. With Chavez we, of course, would not be able to change anything. But this is only Obama, so we can and those changes will surely ruffle a lot of feathers, especially among those who are on the dole. But remember how Gingrich forced Clinton’s hand on welfare reform? It was actually viewed as a good idea and of course, Clinton took time off from jumping interns his daughter’s age to brag about it as though reform were not forced on him.

So what else can Ibama do to screw up the country? He has shown that – like his idol Hugo – he is willing to break laws and ignore the Constitution, so who knows. The answer, however, is not too much that can cause lasting damage. While Ibama knows he won’t get much through congress, he can wreak havoc with executive orders and new regulations, but those can be undone by the next president. Our biggest legitimate concern is that there are no vacancies to be filled in the Supreme Court until “I” packs up and leaves for his mansion in Hawaii.

And remember this. For the next four years, Ibama and his corrupt crew still have to face up to Fast and Furious, the Secret Service scandal, the leaking of classified information to the press and the Benghazi fiasco, to name just a few issues, with the latter possibly being an impeachable offense. And just for fun, let’s throw in the possibility that someone, somewhere will get some alarming facts out about Ibama’s past educational history. By the way, Chavez’ school records from the Venezuelan Academy of Military Sciences are open and available.

So let’s get on with the investigating. Maybe this will be partially a quest for revenge, but hey, if Ibama, by the way who is Commander-in-Chief, thinks that revenge is a legitimate concept, let’s bring it. Viva la venganza!

Democrats for Romney?

April 30, 2012 § 1 Comment

There is a growing sense – totally intangible, elusive and unquantifiable – that maybe, just maybe, some Democrats are getting uneasy with Obama. If you really pay attention, you can pick up the uneasiness in blogs, in private discussions and even in, OMG!, the New York Times.

Now, of course the Times officially is totally in the tank for Obama. That said, there still are little bits and pieces that appear in Obama’s newspaper that suggest just a touch of concern about Obama’s competency, his policies and where he is trying to take the country. Don’t ask for examples, because they are arguable. Either you sense it or you don’t.

Why might this be happening? Well, the obvious answer is that Obama is indeed incompetent, inconsistent, not a leader plus he’s a total failure. In between golf outings, expensive taxpayer paid vacations and lavish White House dinners he only messes things up. He is at war with virtually everyone and everything. He cannot take responsibility for anything that goes wrong, and brother, there is a lot going wrong.

The only thing Obama could put on his resume under ‘accomplishments’, Obamacare, is about to go down the drain. His war with Arizona is going to flame out. His economic policies have proved to be a disaster. His foreign policy, if you can raise his sloppiness to the level of a policy, is incoherent, muddled, inconsistent and dangerous.

Democrats understand how dire circumstances are. Only the hardcore, stubborn or stupid would see things differently. Like Debbie Whats-her-name Schultz, who heads up the DNC. Even she can’t say anything good about Obama. Instead she only talks about how bad Romney and every other Republican is. That’s not how cheerleading is supposed to work. At the end of a really bad game, when your team is down thirty-five points in the fourth quarter, it sounds a little dumb for cheerleaders to be pointing to the other team and yelling ‘they suck’. And at the end of a losing season, the fans and a lot of the players are talking about a new coach.

America is weaker and smaller than it has been since the Carter years. Bush screwed up, for sure. But if he had been president for another four years, he would have turned things around and we would now be back to a robust economy. People would be working.

Now there is a sense that people realize that four more years of what we have now is going to worsen our decline. If you are a Democrat, it might cause you agony to pull the lever for Romney, but in your heart, you’ve got to realize there is no other choice.

Objectively Speaking, NY Times’ Maureen Dowd is a Bitch

March 14, 2012 § Leave a comment

Follow me on this: A female canine is called a bitch. People who focus on maligning others are called an attack dogs. Maureen is, reportedly, a female. Ms Dowd works for the New York Times verbally attacking men, primarily Republican men. Ergo; she‘s an attack bitch. And she also sounds amazingly stupid, as I will illustrate. Let’s start with her most recent column which is about – guess what? –  attacking Republican men.

Take this comment, for example, wherein she states that there is an; “… attempt by Republican men to wrestle American women back into chastity belts…”. Although quoted out of context, if you read her column you will see that the content does nothing to temper her accusation. Does any thinking person really believe the goal of Republican men is to figuratively wrestle women back into chastity belts? Why on earth, Ms. Dowd, would a Republican politician want to alienate roughly half the people who can determine his future? Stupid.

In the very next paragraph, we read this gem of idiocy; “In some kind of insane bout of mass misogyny, Republicans are hounding out the women voters — including Republicans and independents — who helped them gain control of the House in 2010“.  Her argument for this dumb statement is that many GOP politicians continue to voice objection to the killing of fetuses, often for the sake of a mother’s expediency. If Ms Dowd was half as smart as she thinks she is, she would have found out that 57% of all Americans oppose abortion for the purpose of ending a pregnancy simply because it is unwanted. And 42% simply oppose abortion at all. Yet when  When Republican males agree with those millions upon millions of Americans, roughly half women, he is called a woman-hater by this man-hater.

Further on in her column, Dowd attempts to bolster her argument using Rush Limbaugh’s whack at Sandra Fluke, saying that he “branded a law student wanting insurance coverage for birth control pills … as a “prostitute” and “slut.” She of course did not point out that Ms. Fluke all but admits to having so much sex that her birth control costs have gone through the roof.  And now she wants the rest of us to pay for her debauchery. Ms Fluke wants to get money directly as a result of her sexual promiscuity. Now what was the definition of prostitution again?

And, by the way, what if college men wanted their insurance – also paid for by others – to cover the cost of the booze they pour into chicks in order to loosen them up a bit? If Fluke can get money to be able to keep getting laid, the guys should get money to help them get laid also. Fair’s fair.

Dowd goes on to categorize the Republican’s response to Limbaugh as a “craven response”. What were the Republican candidates supposed to say? If they said, ’yeah, Limbaugh hit that one out of the park’ it might be a little harmful with the female voters. If they said, ’that was a terrible smear’, they would be lying. Even liberals can figure out what Fluke is. But Liberals like Dowd saw this as an opportunity to jump on Limbaugh, and by association, all Republicans.

So the Times’ attack bitch goes on, week after week, inanely whomping up on men. She used to be somewhat amusing but she has turned caustic. Now she sounds like a frustrated old maid. It is entirely believable to think that this castrating woman probably can’t get a man to even stand close to her, let alone cozy up. Maybe she needs to get lessons from Ms Fluke – not exactly what the average guy would call his dream girl – who seems to have no trouble luring Georgetown boys into the sack. (First suggestion Maureen; don’t squeeze so hard).

Maureen Dowd’s resume lists a Pulitzer prize although the charge of plagarism probably got left out of it. Pulitzer prizes, in case you didn’t know, are awarded to liberals for stuff they write, sort of like the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to liberals for doing just about nothing but being President. What was Ms. Dowd’s award winner about? Bashing Clinton for boffing Monica. There was no conservative man she could better castrate at that time, so she went to work on the Womanizer-in-Chief. Ok, so she got one right.

To Maureen, testicles are testicles, and she is a specialist in getting them in her grasp. Her grasp of intelligent thought seems much more elusive.

Agreed. Let’s make taxes more fair

January 25, 2012 § 1 Comment

Roughly 47%, or 71 million households, pay no federal income tax, according to estimates by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. But the wealthy – let’s take the top ten percent of taxpayers – paid 72% of all income taxes that were paid to the federal government in 2010.

So 47% pay nothing, while 10% pay nearly three-quarters of all taxes, and Obama wants them to pay even a greater percentage than that. How’s that for unfair?

We conservatives are all for fairness. So let’s begin to make taxation more fair by starting to get the non-tax paying 47 percent to pay something. These are the same people you see walking around with smart phones shopping for $150 sneakers for their kid and going home to watch a 50 inch LCD tv. If those non-payers paid just $100 for a whole year on average, in just ten years of paying taxes those people would have contributed more than $70 billion. And that number is only for households, not all its occupants.

But wait, as they say on those hysterical cable ads, eighty-five percent of those same people not paying taxes are actually getting a ‘tax return’, or making a profit by not paying taxes. In some cases that can amount to as much several thousand dollars per household. If we eliminated the bulk of these handouts, we could easily reach a total of a trillion dollars in ten years net gain to the treasury.

What does the word ‘fair’ mean? Well to Obama, even though he says his goal is for “everybody to play by the same set of rules”, it really only means wealth redistribution and has nothing whatsoever to do with fairness. For Obama, it’s all about the Marxist ideal: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. And Obama fancies himself as the one who will decide who has ability and who has need.

Added to all this is the fact that the reason Obama is concerning himself with taxes at all is because of the huge deficit he has run up by giving money away mostly to the benefit of those who pay no taxes. Now is this convoluted or what? What it is, is (as the slick one would say) that the system has been corrupted to favor those who contribute nothing to our society to the detriment of everyone who does contribute.

That’s unfair.

2012: Time for new Oval Office rug

December 15, 2011 § Leave a comment

For some reason, in the middle of the night, all the 2012 Presidential candidates reminded me of carpeting. No, no, I was sober. Maybe what caused the thought was Romney’s hair, but whatever the reason, each person looking to be President struck me as a carpet type. Below are the various styles available.

THE GINGRICH: Shag carpet. Lots of depth. Been around for a long time. When it’s kept nice and vacuumed and raked (remember that?) it is appealing to many people. But when the carpet gets messed up , the strands are all over the place, out of control and who knows what you’ll find if you look down deeply into the base of the shag. Old cookies, bugs, a few mysterious stains. Who knows? You either love this style or you hate it.

THE ROMNEY: An expensive, rather boring plush. Nothing out of place because there is nothing to get out of place. It’s a plain beige carpet so it can go with anything, and usually does.

THE PAUL: Throw rug. Kind of far out, in unusual shapes and colors that don‘t always match the tastes of the average person. Doesn’t go with all decors, but there is a lot of love for it with certain people. Not much chance it will be used in the main room of the house, but it might make people think more about what they really want.

THE BACHMANN: A wall-to-wall carpet that doesn’t quite reach all the walls. A generally appealing carpet but not big enough for the main room and quirky little flaws show up from time to time. Better than the current rug, just not as good as possible.

THE PERRY: Indoor/outdoor carpet in a choice of one color. Tough, durable and not very deep. Don’t look for much more than what you see on top. May be a little basic, but could get the job done in a pinch.

THE HUNTSMAN: An overlooked carpet that would be good for the job. It’s just kind of bland looking so it doesn’t get much notice. Maybe someone will eventually use it for something important, but not for the main room in the house.

THE SANTORUM: This carpet is sitting unsold in the warehouse and no one expects that anyone will buy it any time soon. And no one cares.

THE OBAMA; THE RUG THAT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED: Originally, this carpet was thought by many naïve people to be an attractive wall-to-wall type that promised a beautiful appearance. However, the carpet was cheaply made out of synthetic materials and it was nowhere good enough to do the job. The carpet started to wear out on the first day it was installed and already had lots of dirty stains. Finally it just gave out altogether and was a big mess. Has lots of holes that people trip over, causing them lots of pain. The people who originally bought the carpet blame the holes on everything but the carpet’s lack of quality, while others ignore the holes and stand on the parts that are still intact, and say, “what a great carpet!”. They want to keep the carpet, but don’t have any good reasons for why that would make sense.

Note to self: Next time, get something with a lot more substance and quality that is deserving of being in our great house.

Any Republican right now

December 13, 2011 § 4 Comments

ANY REPUBLICAN RIGHT NOW

Right now, about eighty percent of all Republicans would probably vote for Atilla the Hun if it meant ending the Obama presidency. Why is it then, that influential Republicans are trashing Newt Gingrich who is leading by a wide margin in many polls and could possibly be our guy come election day?

English: Newt Gingrich

Image via Wikipedia

And why are pundits such as Mark Levin and Peggy Noonan, both usually clear-headed in their opinions and supportive of the right, jumping on the same bandwagon? And why, oh why, is Doctor Charles Krauthammer, hammering the Newt? Doctor K is the most intelligent pundit who has come along since William Buckley Jr. yet he is intent on trashing the Republican front-runner.

This is just plain stupid. Not ill-informed, just plain stupid. In this time of an America hating and utterly incompetent president making one sloppy move after another that is leading to the country’s destruction, these critics are not focused on the problem, and not on the potential solutions.

Whether Sununu, or Thune or Rove or the Christian evangelicals prefer another candidate is not important right now. Rand Paul can be excused to some extent for rooting for his dad, but he doesn’t have to do it by wailing on the front-runner. A strategy of defeating Obama is where their energy should be directed. Election of Any Republican will begin the process of healing the economic wounds that the boy-man in the White House has inflicted on us, simply because Any Republican is not Obama. Even if he is not a pure conservative. That is because Any Republican is better equipped than Obama to fix things simply because he or she really does want to, and Obama, of course does not. A good economy is the bain of the Socialist.

Now is the time to heed Ronald Reagan’s eleventh commandment and not speak ill of other Republicans.

President Ronald Reagan meets with Congressman...

Image via Wikipedia

This concept has been ignored totally as candidates attack each other and give fodder to the Democrats and the talking heads. We don’t need the second coming, we just need not-Obama.

 It’s the issues stupid. And the issues that count most are those issues that have to do with the economy, including immigration. Any Republican in the White House will be better than what we have now.

Let’s start being more focused and way less stupid. We have a big problem to solve and his initials are Barack Hussein Obama.