Rush's Rant

I do not and will never understand the appeal of Rush Limbaugh. To me, the man is vile and endemic of what is so wrong with conservatives. Rush had this to say the other day:

My hope, and please understand me when I say this. I disagree fervently with the people on our side of the aisle who have caved and who say, 'Well, I hope he succeeds. We've got to give him a chance.' Why? They didn't give Bush a chance in 2000. Before he was inaugurated, the search-and-destroy mission had begun. I'm not talking about search-and-destroy, but I've been listening to Barack Obama for a year-and-a-half. I know what his politics are. I know what his plans are, as he has stated them. I don't want them to succeed.

On one hand I am forced to agree with Rush. I did hope that Bush would fail. No let me rephrase that, I KNEW Bush would fail. His policies were not about looking out for the best interests of the majority, they were exclusionary and meant to divide rather than unite us as Americans. So Rush's basic premise is accurate, but there is a bit more going on here, obviously.

First, Obama and Bush are not only different men from different parties with different belief systems and different goals, but Obama is president during a time that is dramatically different than the one in which Bush became our commander in chief.  Bush inherited from the Clinton Administration a country in really pretty good shape, both in terms of our economy and our perception in the world. Obama has not been gifted with either of these luxuries. America's reputation around the world is in shreds and our economy continues to spiral down. (Is it just me or does it remind you of those nightmares where you are falling and there is no bottom?)

What this means is Bush failing and Obama failing as president become two entirely different matters. Of course, Bush's failures have led us to this situation that somehow, someway, Obama must resolve. But if Obama fails, what does that mean for America and Americans?

And the bigger question here, in relation to Mr. Limbaugh, is how DARE he be so cavalier with the future of our country? I am sure I am not alone with any of you gentle readers in personally being affected by this seemingly, over night breakdown of our economy. I have my own woes, which are slight in comparison to the woe's of my friends who have been left without jobs, health care, etc. as a result of the greed of bankers, brokers and their ilk.

I am quite comfortable in apologizing for my part in creating this mess by wishing Bush would fail. But I can not abide the thought that someone would wish for Obama to fail, guaranteeing a further decline for our country. That is truly unamerican and Rush should be ashamed.

Sisterhood of the Traveling Pantsuit

Humor. Check.

Unity. Check.

Patriotism. Check.

Emotional. Check.

Straight talk. Check.

I would say that Hillary Clinton nailed it. "No way. No how. No McCain."

I love how she asked the audience if they were in the campaign for her or for all the Americans who feel invisible. Nice. The shout out to Bill and his ability to balance the budget was nice too—especially the cut away to him smiling. The audience calling out "No" when she started hammering McCain was pretty cool too. And as she got really geared up, she got my blood pumping, the crowd's too and you could see that "you go girl" twinkle in Bill's eye.

My favorite part was towards the end though, and it was what pulled on my heartstrings:

"My mother was born before women could vote. But in this election my daughter got to vote for her mother for President.

This is the story of America. Of women and men who defy the odds and never give up.

How do we give this country back to them?"

And damn skippy if that crazy, scrappy little elfin Dennis Kucinich didn't give 'em hell. When he said "Are you ready for November?" I really thought he was going to say are you ready to rumble! It was a fitting tribute to the late Stephanie Tubbs Jones, and I have to give it to the little guy, he was on fire.

Wonder what Bill will say tonight? And Biden. Something tells me the gloves will be off.

Breakin' It Down

Oh goodie. Last week's Newsweek ran a lovely page on the ways that the presidential candidates have pledged to spend our money should they be elected El Presidente! How exciting to look at someone else's budget rather than my own.

There is a fair bit of info here so I will spread it out and that way all you little political junkies will have something to look forward to this week. Aren't I a benevolent blogger?

Today, let's take a gander at Newsweek's overview of each candidate. 

The overview on Obama: Newsweek says that Obama's plan takes its cues from Rubinomics, the policies created by Bill Clinton and Robert Rubin. I got no problem with a repeat of the prosperity of the 90s, particularly since this time I won't be a perpetual student and might have a chance of benefiting from all the largesse. Basically Obama's plan would let Bush's income tax cuts for high earners fall by the wayside (sounds fine by me) and it would give the middle class some tax cuts. Next he would up spending on health care, move some of the Iraqi war funding over to fix some of our domestic mess and possibly try to help Social Security by lifting the cap on payroll taxes. 

Now for Senator Clinton: Again, like Obama, Clinton would let Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy expire. Also like Obama she would fix it so hedge-fund managers don't have lower tax rates than their administrative assistants. The money she gets from that increase in tax income (and don't start crying for the hedge-fund suits people!) would go to pay down the deficit and five other big issues she holds near and dear: universal health care; education reform; new savings programs; green energy programs; and housing aid.

Finally we come to Senator McCain. Ole Mac has changed his views a bit on Bush's tax cuts for the richies. At first he was against then, but now that he needs their money for his campaign he thinks they are A-O.K. So McCain is now saying he wants to extend the reduced rates that currently would expire in 2010. This means the income, capital gains, and dividends and estates; and it also means we would lose about $3.6 trillion in revenue over a 10 year period of time. Meanwhile he also wants to increase spending on defense and reduce the deficit. Mac—you got some 'splaining to do! Or maybe he has just found the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? St. Patty's is around the corner, maybe the leprechauns are getting slack?

More on this throughout the week. Also, heads up—the Southern Baptist Convention has decided that climate change might exist!!! Be still my heart. All this means is that they have figured out how to make a buck off this.

Oh yeah—Obama took the blue ribbon in the Wyoming caucus. Or whatever prize they give out there to the winner.

Mac Mashes, Take 2

While I wish I could say that I have avoided following up on 

the previous post due to the ickiness of imaging a 60-something John McCain getting it on with a 40-something lobbyist, I have just been too busy to devote any time to the beloved blog. Shed a tear for my neglectfulness and then let's get into it.

McCain and the lobbyist chick (Vicki Iseman) have denied any hanky panky occurred. But Chuck Todd raised an interesting point last night on Olbermann, the NY Times isn't exactly the Star or even USWeekly, so is it possible that they know more than they are letting on in the article (out of good taste)? What I think Todd was getting at, is it doesn't seem that the NY Times would run something so rumor-based if they didn't have a bit more to go on than that. Who knows, only time will tell in that regard.

But my first question is this: McCain's wife is pretty freakin' hot. Now I know that she has had her problems in the past. In fact if I remember correctly, her bout with prescription drug abuse came out around the time of the 2000 election when the alleged affair also occurred. Maybe there is a link there, maybe not. Back to my question. Cindy McCain is pretty smoking hot, full-on MILF, so what the heck could 'ole Mac have been thinking if all of this is true. (Let us hope that the photo of Iseman, left, is unfortunate and not how she really looks.)

My second question is how is the GOP going to take this, true or not? This, after all, is the same party that wanted Bill Clinton's head on a platter for getting a BJ from an intern. And that was someone from their opposing party. Here you have the possibility of a potential future president not only committing adultery, but doing it with a paid political operative. Frankly, that seems to me to be a bit of a bigger problem. An affair, that is something between a husband and wife to resolve in my opinion, not something up for public discussion. But the influence peddling that could result from a lobbyist getting "jiggy" with the prez? Ooh la la.

What do you all think? Issue or non-issue? And will the Republicans protect their own?