OK, not Dilbert, but Scott Adams that writes the Dilbert comic strip on life in the dead-end corporate world. Today, Wally gets paid off for being discriminated against -- and he wonders what to do with a $1 billion dollars, now that he is one of the 1%. Pointy haired boss directs him to "the tiny unicorn with a golden key".
On DayByDayCartoon.com, Damon (sorry about this link. It just seems the most cynical,apropos snark on the pursuit of the opposite sex, ever.) has been running for US President (from the comic strip). DbD has always been non-Demcrat, pits two sisters and their families across the liberal/conservative divide. The take is that liberals have good intentions but tend to make matters worse for the most people, and there *is* no voice for conservatives, since the Republican party is so heavily invested in business as usual, they are uninterested in Constitutional government, checks and balances, or the will of the Republican party let alone the American people.
DbD tends to lampoon President Obama as a throwback to the pre-Revolutionary war French king, with period costume and obsequious lackeys.
Another touch point of mine on the internet is a farmer from Indiana, Frank W. James. Mr. James is a professional gun writer of long standing, with several books to his credit, and several magazine articles and columns currently. Frank refers to the current resident of the White House as President Unicorn, with scant admiration.
It is seldom that Dilbert strays so far from mundane office politics and snark, even indirectly into Presidential commentary. To be fair, this might be a snide comment on the Occupy rudderless disturbances (with their support from labor unions and Obama's re-election committee). The 1% is an Occupy/Obama talking point reference. The unicorn, though has long been a symbol used by President B. Hussein Obama's detractors.
You go, Dilbert!
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Monday, January 9, 2012
I voted Republican since Gerald Ford
And yet, I think Hillary Clinton might be the least-bad choice for America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/keller-just-the-ticket.html?ref=opinion
I think the Democratic party needs to jettison Obama for Hillary; that would be my preferred scenario. The NY Times' Bill Keller thinks a more likely scenario would move Hillary into the VP spot come November. That, I think, would be terrible for America, leaving the Obama tribunal at the top of the feeding frenzy pyramid. I shudder to think what an extra *month* of Obama will do.
But the Republican party has shown itself to be remarkably resilient -- and resistant to learning anything about why Congress is so mistrusted, why winning the election seems so at odds with what the Tea Party and even the Occupy movements signify.
That is, unless something radical happens between now and then, I don't see myself voting Republican this year. And most incumbents had better have a damned virtuous -- and conservative, constitutional -- track record.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/opinion/keller-just-the-ticket.html?ref=opinion
I think the Democratic party needs to jettison Obama for Hillary; that would be my preferred scenario. The NY Times' Bill Keller thinks a more likely scenario would move Hillary into the VP spot come November. That, I think, would be terrible for America, leaving the Obama tribunal at the top of the feeding frenzy pyramid. I shudder to think what an extra *month* of Obama will do.
But the Republican party has shown itself to be remarkably resilient -- and resistant to learning anything about why Congress is so mistrusted, why winning the election seems so at odds with what the Tea Party and even the Occupy movements signify.
That is, unless something radical happens between now and then, I don't see myself voting Republican this year. And most incumbents had better have a damned virtuous -- and conservative, constitutional -- track record.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
No one is planning to steal Republican voters. The GOP is shooing them out the door.
The mass media is reporting that Ron Pauls ascendency in the polls and refusal to rule out a third party run threatens to steal republican voters.
Hah.
The Republican party was given a *mandate*, the authority and expectation of change to limit the size and scope of the US government, to bring spending into line with *reducing* the federal deficit *now*.
The few members of the House and Senate that still adhere to that mandate are called out as "tea party" republicans, are are depicted by both Republican party leadership and the mass media as "not real Republicans" at all.
Those same people that saw what the Tea Party had to say, and saw that it makes sense in today's world and what we build for tomorrow, still want the truth, the discipline that upset things in 2010.
And the Republican party pulls out the next old white guy standing in line. Romney and Gingrich, even Perry still represent the monied interests running things since Dole, since McCain. The Bush's worked well for the Party, but Bush II was a disaster for America. And the Republican party, like any big for-profit multinational corporation, is in it for the money. There is precious little room in the Republican party, demonstrated by it's actions, for loyalty, for honesty, for ethics and adherence to convictions.
There is an argument to be made that the big threat right now is Obama, and everything that helps unseat this President is a necessary stratagem for the survival of America. But the result of delaying the building of a restored America makes that goal less attainable.
Too many people, Republicans among them, understand this.
We spout out about the "will of the people", when the Republican party continuously rubs America's face in the fact that the Republican party merely wants to exploit voters for it's own ends.
So, no. Past NM governor Gary Johnson isn't stealing Republican party voters -- he is offering the Republican party's throw-aways a chance to believe in someone. Ron Paul's chimera of a third party run isn't stealing Republican voters -- or donations. He has tapped into a knowledgeable pool of people that vote, and understand the implications of doing nothing as the Republican party seems invested in doing.
Hah.
The Republican party was given a *mandate*, the authority and expectation of change to limit the size and scope of the US government, to bring spending into line with *reducing* the federal deficit *now*.
The few members of the House and Senate that still adhere to that mandate are called out as "tea party" republicans, are are depicted by both Republican party leadership and the mass media as "not real Republicans" at all.
Those same people that saw what the Tea Party had to say, and saw that it makes sense in today's world and what we build for tomorrow, still want the truth, the discipline that upset things in 2010.
And the Republican party pulls out the next old white guy standing in line. Romney and Gingrich, even Perry still represent the monied interests running things since Dole, since McCain. The Bush's worked well for the Party, but Bush II was a disaster for America. And the Republican party, like any big for-profit multinational corporation, is in it for the money. There is precious little room in the Republican party, demonstrated by it's actions, for loyalty, for honesty, for ethics and adherence to convictions.
There is an argument to be made that the big threat right now is Obama, and everything that helps unseat this President is a necessary stratagem for the survival of America. But the result of delaying the building of a restored America makes that goal less attainable.
Too many people, Republicans among them, understand this.
We spout out about the "will of the people", when the Republican party continuously rubs America's face in the fact that the Republican party merely wants to exploit voters for it's own ends.
So, no. Past NM governor Gary Johnson isn't stealing Republican party voters -- he is offering the Republican party's throw-aways a chance to believe in someone. Ron Paul's chimera of a third party run isn't stealing Republican voters -- or donations. He has tapped into a knowledgeable pool of people that vote, and understand the implications of doing nothing as the Republican party seems invested in doing.
Monday, December 19, 2011
I was raised Democrat
My parents were strong Democrats. Mom to this day thinks of herself that way. I was raised in a Democratic home, and thought that the Democrats were just better.
But I recall Gerald Ford as President of the US. He took the office at a troubled time in US history, as Richard Nixon resigned the office under the cloud of impeachment. President Ford was, to me, dependable. Nearly harmless, he didn't do much to inspire my loyalty or pride, or disappointment. That last is important.
Jimmy Carter failed miserably, in his campaign for President, to convince me that he had any credentials, or that he committed himself to anything I found worthwhile. Having served in the US Navy, I found Carter's inability to pronounce nuclear (new-clee-ar, not Carter's new-kyu-ler) correctly to be petty, but still it biased my antipathy against Carter.
The Democrats have failed to put forth a candidate since then to make me reconsider my Republican-by-default political leanings.
In 2008 I decried Hilary Clinton, B. Hussein Obama, Sen. McCain, pretty much universally. The most promising move of the campaign, I thought, was nominating Sarah Palin for VP candidate. I thought at the time this meant that the staid, old-white-guy, you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours good old boy clicque running the GOP were changing, were changing in their perception of reality and of the needs of the nation.
McCain, being McCain, should not have been elected. He shouldn't have been nominated. His war record not withstanding, his morals and ethics seemed entirely too . . fluid. And the Republican party has shown itself completely immune to ethics, morals, change, and any interest in serving Republicans.
I still think the stated values of the Republican party are superior -- sound economics, defense of freedoms, limited government. I do *not* believe the Republican National Committee has any intention of doing anything toward any of those stated values.
So, on Politico.com, an opinion piece by Caddell and Shoen leap off in a new direction: Draft Hillary Clinton.
In 2008 I hated Hillary with a passion. I felt that remaining married to husband and past President Bill Clinton, she showed an historic lack of character. I felt that leaving Arkansas to run for the Senate from New York was mercenary, shallow, and an abuse of the people of New York. I never asked any Arkansas people if they missed having the Clintons when Bill and Hillary moved back East after their terms in Washington, D.C.
And, yet, the Republicans have shown themselves to be too heavily invested in the runaway economy to correct anything substantial. The leading Republican candidates, Gingrich, Perry, Romney, are all proof that the Republican Party intends to keep running the-next-good-old-boy in line.
And I found myself thinking, "I could vote for Hillary."
The nation will have to watch Hillary, if she is elected, closely. Her anti-gun position is as adamant as B. Hussein Obama and his Chicago thug pals. Hillary has the labor unions behind her, with all of their special interests that seem to support wrecking the profit motive and creation of work in America.
But she is still less scary than Obama or the GOP (where is the "Grand" part in "Grand Old Party", anymore?) candidates.
Hillary hasn't changed since the Clinton Administration, nor since 2008. I haven't changed my views that much since then. But the times, and the field of "hopefuls" has gotten really scary for me.
I could easily change my mind. All it would take would be a Republican candidate superior to Cain. Or a Democratic VP nominee with less appeal than VP Joe Biden. Any number of things could happen before next November, that might convince me to change my mind.
But, wow is that startling, to think that I might vote for Hillary Clinton for President in 2012, with no regrets. Amazing.
But I recall Gerald Ford as President of the US. He took the office at a troubled time in US history, as Richard Nixon resigned the office under the cloud of impeachment. President Ford was, to me, dependable. Nearly harmless, he didn't do much to inspire my loyalty or pride, or disappointment. That last is important.
Jimmy Carter failed miserably, in his campaign for President, to convince me that he had any credentials, or that he committed himself to anything I found worthwhile. Having served in the US Navy, I found Carter's inability to pronounce nuclear (new-clee-ar, not Carter's new-kyu-ler) correctly to be petty, but still it biased my antipathy against Carter.
The Democrats have failed to put forth a candidate since then to make me reconsider my Republican-by-default political leanings.
In 2008 I decried Hilary Clinton, B. Hussein Obama, Sen. McCain, pretty much universally. The most promising move of the campaign, I thought, was nominating Sarah Palin for VP candidate. I thought at the time this meant that the staid, old-white-guy, you-scratch-my-back-and-I'll-scratch-yours good old boy clicque running the GOP were changing, were changing in their perception of reality and of the needs of the nation.
McCain, being McCain, should not have been elected. He shouldn't have been nominated. His war record not withstanding, his morals and ethics seemed entirely too . . fluid. And the Republican party has shown itself completely immune to ethics, morals, change, and any interest in serving Republicans.
I still think the stated values of the Republican party are superior -- sound economics, defense of freedoms, limited government. I do *not* believe the Republican National Committee has any intention of doing anything toward any of those stated values.
So, on Politico.com, an opinion piece by Caddell and Shoen leap off in a new direction: Draft Hillary Clinton.
In 2008 I hated Hillary with a passion. I felt that remaining married to husband and past President Bill Clinton, she showed an historic lack of character. I felt that leaving Arkansas to run for the Senate from New York was mercenary, shallow, and an abuse of the people of New York. I never asked any Arkansas people if they missed having the Clintons when Bill and Hillary moved back East after their terms in Washington, D.C.
And, yet, the Republicans have shown themselves to be too heavily invested in the runaway economy to correct anything substantial. The leading Republican candidates, Gingrich, Perry, Romney, are all proof that the Republican Party intends to keep running the-next-good-old-boy in line.
And I found myself thinking, "I could vote for Hillary."
The nation will have to watch Hillary, if she is elected, closely. Her anti-gun position is as adamant as B. Hussein Obama and his Chicago thug pals. Hillary has the labor unions behind her, with all of their special interests that seem to support wrecking the profit motive and creation of work in America.
But she is still less scary than Obama or the GOP (where is the "Grand" part in "Grand Old Party", anymore?) candidates.
Hillary hasn't changed since the Clinton Administration, nor since 2008. I haven't changed my views that much since then. But the times, and the field of "hopefuls" has gotten really scary for me.
I could easily change my mind. All it would take would be a Republican candidate superior to Cain. Or a Democratic VP nominee with less appeal than VP Joe Biden. Any number of things could happen before next November, that might convince me to change my mind.
But, wow is that startling, to think that I might vote for Hillary Clinton for President in 2012, with no regrets. Amazing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)