Sunday, January 20, 2008

WOW, NOT ONLY IS THIS NFL PLAYOFF DAY BUT, MORE IMPORTANTLY.....

It's the day we can count under a year until McFlightsuit returns to Crawford.

32 Comments:

At 1:07 PM, January 21, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And just maybe, if you get your wish,
under a year until Der Slickmeister returns to the White House.

 
At 2:09 PM, January 21, 2008, Blogger Blogvine said...

Gawwwd, there has been a Bush or Clinton in the White House since 19 frickin 80.

 
At 3:18 PM, January 21, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Vine-ripened.

Well I take your point but not exactly. GHW Bush was sworn in Jan 20, 1989. Before that, he lived in Blair House, then on US Navy property. His Office was in the EOB.

So it's only 19 years and change.

TYFCB

 
At 3:20 PM, January 21, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

1307,

I see four bona fide reasonable possibilities right now. Three of them would be an improvement on what we have now.

 
At 5:38 PM, January 21, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Can't wait until we have Chelsea Clinton running against George Lopez Bush (One of GHW's grandkids. Can't remember his real name. Just know his mom is Hispanic) in about 24 years.

 
At 6:34 AM, January 22, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

538

This from someone who most likely voted for John Kerry.

 
At 7:05 AM, January 22, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

For seven years, the left has been up in arms about President Bush's aggressive foreign policy, his secrecy, his partisanship, and his expansive claims on executive power. It's odd, then, that they're prepared to nominate Hillary Clinton to carry the party into the 2008 elections.

 
At 9:27 AM, January 22, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

umr 3:20

Who are the four? three?

 
At 9:41 AM, January 22, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Obama, McCain, Clinton, Romney

First three would be an improvement over McFlightSuit. Romney, can't tell. Impossible to detect any core values except obviously loving his family.

TYFCB

 
At 9:42 AM, January 22, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

0705,

And what senator from New York would have a different voting record on national security from hers?

 
At 9:45 AM, January 22, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

0634,

Kerry wasn't running against Abraham Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt. He was running against McFlightSuit. If 0538 did vote as you say, he chose the better of two lukewarm choices.

BTW, It's George P. Bush and he's comin' Chelsea, never happen.

 
At 9:52 AM, January 22, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton is fond of saying that, if she knew in 2002 what she knows now, she would not have voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. To this day Clinton does not regret her vote, she only regrets “the way the president used the authority that Congress gave him.” Her campaign mantra, “The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress,” is an attempt to draw a veil of innocence over her vote and implicate all of us in the Iraq swindle.

Well, “all of us” really can’t continue to buy this argument. George Bush may have pulled the trigger, but Republicans and too many Democrats were holding the gun. Iraq was and continues to be a bipartisan war, and Hillary Clinton, until only recently, has been a vociferous cheerleader. Had events in Iraq taken a different turn, Clinton would be first in line to congratulate Bush on a job well done.

 
At 1:40 PM, January 22, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How sick can this country be to even consider another Clinton or Bush anytime, ever!!!!!! Jesus, can't we do better? Obama is light years better than the worn out Hillary. Have we no f**king pride? Can we not get out of the freaking rut??

 
At 1:55 PM, January 22, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Camille Paglia has it pegged:

"Hillary ... with her thin, spotty record, tangled psychological baggage, and maundering blowhard of a husband, is also a mighty big roll of the dice. She is a brittle, relentless manipulator with few stable core values who shuffles through useful personalities like a card shark ("Cue the tears!"). Forget all her little gold crosses: Hillary's real god is political expediency. Do Americans truly want this hard-bitten Machiavellian back in the White House?"

 
At 8:32 PM, January 22, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

0952,

Appreciating the sentiment underlying your thoughts, we don't get "do overs" in public life. Not useful whether she's sorry. There is certainly some merit to the "misleading" part of the psychodrama by the Bushies.

I take your point but we disagree on how many points to deduct for the failure to complete the double axel.

TYFCB

 
At 8:34 PM, January 22, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Light Years better at what?

TYFCB

 
At 8:37 PM, January 22, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

While the Basin has once quoted CPags, it was with the caution that we do not find much of what she says useful.

Pretty much tend to discredit anyone who pretends to know what's in another's heart.

You can worship at the altar if you want. Or, here's a thought: You could just think for yourself.

Nah, forget it. Just surf some columnists.

TYFCB

 
At 5:54 AM, January 23, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

UMR 837

Reading and forming an opinion on what someone else writes hardly requires one to abandon thinking for themselves. Ever read someone's opinion you agree with?

 
At 6:47 AM, January 23, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

He is light years ahead on the baggage and creditability issues.
Tell me what Hillary brings to the table that will unite this country? Other than being a woman, what are her credentials?? Her dislike points are extremely high. This country needs a fresh start. A vision for better, not another political hack.

 
At 10:39 AM, January 24, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

1754,

That was kind of the point. In the last year, I have quoted CPags with approval and GWill with approval. I have also upheld Joe Conason and Mitt Romney. I don't worship they byline, I try to look for reasoning.

The CPags you bring to the table is just a bunch of name-calling and pop psychobabble.

 
At 10:45 AM, January 24, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Baggage? Every Successful Politician's got baggage. People and deals always get corked in the rear view mirror. Read O'B's racial profiling law someday. BObama's a great guy and would make a fine president but HRC has done what naughty baggage thing? Advocated for Children's rights and safety, raised a fine adult child, stayed married to her frisky husband?

Oh, yeah, she testified before a grand jury. And that is illegal or a negative excactly how?

Everybody left in the race has a samsonite bigger than Oprah's chair. What you're saying is, in summary, you find BObama more attractive. Go for it. Just don't argue it as some sort of objective truth.

TYFCB

 
At 12:17 PM, January 24, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So, was Hillary “fooled” on Iraq? And what about her recent vote to give Bush an opening to attack Iran? Was she “fooled again”? If she indeed was misled by Bush, we’d expect her speeches to be filled with alternative strategies and policies, but they’re not. In fact, if we look at Clinton’s words and votes regarding the Middle East, it becomes clear what a foreign policy under “President Hillary Clinton” would look like – indistinguishable from Bush’s and bearing a strong resemblance to the neocon agenda.

 
At 12:41 PM, January 24, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary is a contrived political animal, one who would be nowhere if she were bereft of the very accommodating coattails of her estranged yet conveniently Presidential hubby. His libido was a national embarrassment, yet he always receives a rock star reception; teenage girls faint, women fantasize, men cheer, and the star quality rubs off on Hillary. It is a marriage of political convenience, a partnership of mutual ambition. Hillary has even tried to profit from Bill tomcatting around the oval office; barely but bravely holding back tears while sympathetic anchors gently touch on the issue, she tries to appeal to every woman who has ever been scorned by her man in another cynical campaign tool at the end of its usefulness. Hillary's every public appearance is a choreographed performance, every emotional display planned and every interview scripted and rehearsed.

 
At 2:16 PM, January 24, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

On Sunday, January 27, 2008, our nation celebrates an important political anniversary.

Ten years ago Hillary Clinton (then the First Lady) went on television with Matt Lauer.

Thus was born the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. Hillary expected serious Americans to believe that the Whitewater convictions (which put a sitting Arkansas governor in prison), the suicide of the Deputy White House Chief Counsel under mysterious circumstances, the unconscionable firing of the White House travel staff, Hillary's strange acumen in predicting the cattle futures market, an allegation of brutal rape against her husband, the perjury of Bill Clinton in a federal grand jury proceeding, his affair with a White House intern, and the countless other moral debauches of the Clintons were created by some cabal with power greater than the president, the Democratic Party and the huge phalanx of media flacks, fawning Hollywood starlets, militant activists and nihilistic academicians.

 
At 2:49 PM, January 24, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

1217,

So you're saying she's lying about the pullout order. Or perhaps you're saying we should be pulling options off of the table viz. Iran. Or perhaps you're just out of original material so you call her, in effect a colonialist like the current crowd because it's the vilest insult you can come up with.

TYFCB, even if it was a little weak.

 
At 3:03 PM, January 24, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Okey,

Follow the bouncing ball:

"Hillary is a contrived political animal, one who would be nowhere if she were bereft of the very accommodating coattails of her estranged yet conveniently Presidential hubby."

She wasn't married to WJC when she was merit-selected for the Watergate committee (before she'd even passed the bar). She wasn't married to Bill Clinton when the MGP of of the Rose Law Firm came to Fayetteville to recruit her. Upon exactly what double-blind study do you base your stunning conclusion that she'd be nowhere without WJC



"His libido was a national embarrassment, yet he always receives a rock star reception; teenage girls faint, women fantasize, men cheer, and the star quality rubs off on Hillary."

I always hate to raise this annoying possibilitiy but consider that she is an interesting person to spend time with, a devoted partner and someone not afraid to tell an impulsive spouse what he needs to hear. In many quarters, there is a term for that. It is called "Devoted Spouse." Folks tend to stay married to them.

"It is a marriage of political convenience, a partnership of mutual ambition. Hillary has even tried to profit from Bill tomcatting around the oval office; barely but bravely holding back tears while sympathetic anchors gently touch on the issue, she tries to appeal to every woman who has ever been scorned by her man in another cynical campaign tool at the end of its usefulness."

First, there's this useful punctuation mark called a period. It tends to break run-on paragraphs into sentences. Second, you scintillating insight into another person's marriage is based upon what, your ability to read minds? Third, assume you're correct about the utility of having been the victim of infidelity. Successful people take lemons and make lemonade. Maybe it's that same skill that got her ahead on the merits when she was a young woman. Finally, if she didn't show some emotion about her vicimization, you'd just complain that she was cold bitch who didn't have any empathy for ordinary human problems.

"Hillary's every public appearance is a choreographed performance, every emotional display planned and every interview scripted and rehearsed."

Well, I'll be damned. Folks, we got Dr. Phil stoppin' by here. BTW, I suppose you think everything BObama and MRomney do is completely spontaneous and natural.

The Hungarian Judge just gave you a 9.9 on the psychobabble scale.

 
At 3:05 PM, January 24, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

1416,

In there amongst the ancient talking points, there's a really good one:

"Debauches" led to "Da Bushes"

TYFCB

 
At 3:36 PM, January 24, 2008, Blogger TOOKIE said...

I just posted but I can't wait to watch the clinton's chew up and spit out Obama ..........


Great stuff coming with in max 30 days

 
At 4:01 PM, January 24, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

Yeah, Baby.

Plant that flag (pick your flag carefully) in SoCarolina because HRC is out where the low hanging fruit is plentiful--in Feb 5 land.

BTW, representing TR is tough stuff. You never know when, after you do the work, the Federales come looking for the money. "What, proceeds of an illegal enterprise? Who knew?"

TYFCB

 
At 5:05 PM, January 24, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hillary's whole career does not depend on being the victim of an unfaithful husband. Her whole career depends on being the wife of an ex-President and using the ethics-challenged political machine she helped him put together. That's how she got elected in New York, a state she never previously lived in, and that's how she hopes to win the presidency.

Yet most Americans understand at gut level that a principled woman, a woman of vision and dignity would have dumped Bill long ago and taken pride in her independence. Not Hillary. Funny how the whole apology thing worked out like it was dreamed up in a strategy session, the bad man putting the ever-suffering woman down, a classic "iron my shirt" event. We now have the "Hillary Standard." The candidate gets special treatment because she is a woman, all while she is talking about breaking the glass ceiling. Hillary will use whatever chance brings her, assuming most Americans will probably miss the irony anyway.

 
At 5:45 PM, January 24, 2008, Anonymous Anonymous said...

bouncing balls 303

Are the Clintons paying you for this stuff? You have to either be the most naive person on the face of the earth, not smart or not honest with yourself.

 
At 6:34 PM, January 24, 2008, Blogger UMRBlog said...

1545,

Give me something real, measurable to talk about and then we can discuss how naive I am. Keep in mind, I have a little more insight into the Clinton family over the last 35 years than you.

Name calling doesn't cut it. State something measurable we can discuss whether it's true or false.

Naively TYFCB

 

Post a Comment

<< Home