We also agree that Rand Paul is a good man - potentially
a great man... and John Boehner and Eric Cantor (along with that ass John
McCain and his "mini-McCain" Lindsey Graham)... suck.
Well, we always knew the Democrat leadership would fall
in behind the Prez on Syria – and Nancy Pelosi led the pack.
Speaking yesterday she made the standard humanitarian
case for intervention but then added her own cute spin. Nancy told us that she
asked her 5-year old grandson if he thought America should go to war. “No!” he
replied, so...
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
...she gave him a lesson in the importance of deterring
the use of chemical weapons.
(There are two things to take away from that surreal
anecdote. A) Nancy discusses foreign policy with 5-year olds. B) They know more
about it than her.)
But it turns out that the GOP leadership is supporting
Barack Obama, too. Sigh.
DID TIM STEAL THAT "SIGH" FROM YOURS TRULY? I
DON'T KNOW, FOLKS...
(*GRIN*)
We might have always expected John McCain (“Bomb, bomb,
bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”) and Lindsey Graham (Republican By Rumor Only) to come
out strongly for war, but it’s disappointing to note that John Boehner and Eric
Cantor were quick to follow.
I... HATE... JOHN... BOEHNER...
(AND JOHN MCCAIN... AND LINDSEY GRAHAM... AND ERIC
CANTOR...)
(*CLENCHED JAW*)
At least these gung-ho Americans are all being honest
about the realities of intervention.
While British hawks constantly assert that this is
"only about chemical weapons," Obama said as he met with
congressional leaders: “We have a broader strategy that will allow us to
upgrade the capabilities of the opposition.” So war leading to regime change,
then –something that the Republican leadership is apparently very comfortable
with.
(So comfortable that John McCain was caught playing an
iPhone game during the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing into Syria.)
THE OLD BASTARD IS SENILE; I'M CONVINCED OF IT.
(What with Nancy asking 5-year olds their views and John
playing 5-year olds’ games, American politics isn’t looking terribly mature
right now.)
I WOULD HOWEVER SUPPORT MORE AMERICAN POLITICIANS PLAYING
RUSSIAN ROULETTE! (SENATOR MCCAIN... SURELY YOU OWN A PISTOL OR TWO OR THREE...)
In his frustration, conservative guru Matt Drudge posted
some angry tweets. First: “It’s now Authoritarian vs. Libertarian. Since
Democrats vs. Republicans has been obliterated, no real difference between
parties.” And then (I don’t know if he drinks, but this feels about the fifth
beer in), “Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes;
marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!”
UNFORTUNATELY... DRUDGE KNOWS WHO THEY ARE. THEY'RE SCUM
- AT LEAST MOST REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. ARE THE DEMS WORSE? YES! SURE!
BUT IN THE END... WHEN WE'RE TALKING BETWEEN 90% SCUM AND MAYBE 98% SCUM...
DOES IT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE?
FOLKS... RECALL... THE GOP HOUSE CAUCUS ARE THE PEOPLE
WHO ELECTED BOEHNER SPEAKER AND RE-ELECTED HIM SPEAKER. MOST OF THESE SAME SCUM
WERE ALSO SUPPORTERS OF ROMNEY DURING THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES... AND
SUPPORTERS OF MCCAIN IN THE GOP PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY PRIOR TO LAST YEAR'S!
Who indeed? Drudge makes an interesting point that
although the Left spent the 2012 election accusing the Republicans of being
extremists, since then the GOP leadership has tied itself to a big government
consensus on both civil liberties and war.
(*NOD*)
Things are looking uncertain on the question of defunding
ObamaCare, too.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
So if the parties are agreed on fundamental questions
about state power and constitutional rights, who does offer an alternative?
THERE IS NO VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. NOT UNLESS THE MOVERS AND
SHAKERS OF THE LIBERTARIAN-LEANING CONSERVATIVE CONSTITUTIONIST MOVEMENT BAND
TOGETHER AND CREATE A NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE THROUGH WHICH REPUBLICANS LIKE
MYSELF CAN "FIRE" INCOMBENT RINO MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE AND SENATE BY
REPLACING THEM AS CANDIDATES WITH - FOR WANT OF ANOTHER TERM - "TEA PARTY
CANDIDATES."
[A]n example of the kind of thing that principled
conservatives can do when they put their minds to it was shown by Rand Paul
yesterday in his grilling of John Kerry.
Paul asked Kerry if the President would respect Congress’
verdict if it voted intervention down.
Kerry basically replied, “Maybe not”, arguing that it was
still within the President’s power to act.
(*PURSED LIPS*)
There were also some fascinating skirmishes over the
paradox of Kerry opposing war in Cambodia in the 1970s but backing it in Libya
and Syria, climaxing in a spat over whether or not "limited" military
action is equivalent to saying, "We're in it, but we don't want to win it."
Paul beat Kerry on almost every point – and not with the
force of his somewhat clinical personality. It was because he kept referring to
the Constitution and the proper powers of Congress.
While other politicians were falling over themselves to
make emotional appeals and invoke conversations with their grandchildren, Paul
was sticking to logic and the law. It's refreshing.
GOD... DAMN... RIGHT...!!!
So Drudge is right: the GOP’s leadership is lacking both
a moral core and a message at the moment.
FORGET "AT THE MOMENT;" UNFORTUNATELY... WE'RE
TALKING THE NORM.
Americans basically face a choice between two strands of
big government thinking – one welfare orientated (Dems) and one warfare
orientated (Republicans).
ONLY NOW THE DEMOCRATS ARE CALLING FOR BOTH GUNS AND
BUTTER... FOR WELFARE AND WARFARE!
But there is cause to hope. Although Obama scored a
short-term win by throwing the question of war open to Congress and thus
exposing the divisions within the GOP, this has also given conservatives the
opportunity to debate philosophy and what being a Republican actually means.
AND MEN LIKE RAND PAUL AND TED CRUZ HAVE BEEN DOING SO...
BUT THE SAD FACT IS THAT YOUR AVERAGE REPUBLICAN IN ELECTED OFFICE IS CLOSER TO
A "BOEHNER REPUBLICAN" THAN A "BARKER REPUBLICAN."
No comments:
Post a Comment