Disarming the GOP Memes

Yesterday I posted the video to Saturday night's White House Correspondents' Dinner and took the opportunity to watch them a second time. I thought the second time was better than the first in regards to both the President's and Jimmy Kimmel's performances.

But something struck me while watching the President. There were the dog eating jokes. A lot of dog eating jokes. Just when you think he'd move on, he'd come in with another one. For a bit, I thought it was too much. But watching it a second time, I realized that all the self deprecation was yet another tool to disarm some of the ridiculous right wing talking points and conspiracy theories that still resonate with the uninformed, misinformed and ignorant that plague our society.

The President's wink after he stating he was born in Hawaii, the GSA scandal cracks, Hillary Clinton's "drunk texting from Cartajena" joke, and the constant dog eating jokes, all designed to disarm the constant harping from the right wing on things that don't matter, or more serious issues that are being dealt with but are used to misplace the blame on the President.

Why this struck me the way it did was because I can't recall such self deprecation on the other side. Sure, there's that hilarious time President Bush was looking under his coffee table for nonexistent weapons of mass destruction, but that wasn't so much humorous as it was sad and insulting. Eating dog because it's part of the culture in Indonesia when you're eight years old is a little different than starting a war under false pretenses. An "Oops, my bad" joke in that situation is not at all funny. But I digress.

The point is, watching the idiots on Fox and Friends or Hannity make the off-handed dog eating joke now is only going to make them look childish.

Did you know...

POSTED BY JHW22

I have no idea who started this but my sister-in-law sent it to me and I feel it must be shared. If anyone discovers the originator, please give them my thanks and let me know if I can give them the credit.

Did you know the words "race car" reversed spells "race car"? and "eat" is the only word that if you take the first letter and move it to the last, spells its own past tense, "ate"? If you rearrange the letters in "Tea Party Republicans," and add a few more, it spells: "Shut the fuck up you free-loading, progress-blocking, benefit-grabbing, resource-sucking, violent hypocrites, and deal with the fact that you nearly wrecked the country under Bush and that our president is black, so get over it."

A story

POSTED BY JHW22

He was a happy guy. Not much bothered him, mostly because not much made sense to him. He didn't let details drag him down and he was more than happy to let others make decisions for him. His outlook on life boiled down to not sweating the little stuff, and by God, he was going to apply that to every aspect of his life.

In 2001, he started a new job. It was a pretty big job with a pretty big company. He enjoyed the job, worked with most of his friends and had all he could need. Life was grand. He enjoyed his job so much, that a handful of months after starting the job, he went to his boss and said, "Ya know, I really don't need one-thousand dollars a month for my salary. Why don't ya just pay me nine hundred a month. I have all I need and you could spend that better than I could." His boss was confused. No one had asked for a pay decrease. His boss encouraged him to re-think things, "You may not need this one hundred now, I know you have a good chunk in savings, but don't you have some repairs on your house or someone in your family who needs some help with medical bills or education?"

But the man, in his typical easy-going self said, "Nope. It's all good. I don't need more than what it takes to get by day to day. Keep it. Enjoy it."

So instead of $1000 a month, the man made $900 a month. And he was happy. His boss was happy to have a little extra in his pocket, but still felt a tad uneasy.

Then, several months later, a horrible thing happened. Violence like he'd never seen took place within his life and it shook him to the core -- emotionally, structurally, financially. Not only did this event cost lives and physical losses, it created a financial burden on him.

He had new expenses associated with the tragedy. And for the first time, he wasn't happy. He was shocked and sad and ANGRY. He wanted revenge and decided to go after the people who perpetrated the violence. And that cost money. But because he was living month to month, after asking for a pay decrease, money was tight.

But he was still angry and not finding the perp so decided to take out his anger on another person. This other person was a real asshole, to be sure, but was an empty target of the man's rage. And acting on his rage cost the man even more. More that he didn't have, after asking for the pay decrease.

His boss went to him and begged him to take a pay increase, "You need this money to fight your battles. Take it, please. Your family needs to you have this money." But the man declined.

Then the man remembered his boss once asking if someone in his family needed help with health care. Yes, he did have a grandmother who was having a hard time paying for prescriptions, so he decided to start paying for her medicine, at full cost. Again, he didn't have the money for it. And again, his boss offered -- and was rebuffed -- a raise.

All of this added up and he had no choice to charge these expenses to his credit card. He was only able to make the minimum payments each month, so his interest was stacking and piling and mounting.

In the meantime, he sent out generous Christmas gifts to friends and family, trying to cover his financial stress with gifts.

And then his bank was robbed and all the money he had access to, and his bosses money, was stolen. It was going to take time to recoup the money, so for a short time, he wasn't going to get paid. This created a financial disaster he never saw coming. His mortgage was due and he couldn't pay it. His credit card bill was due and he couldn't pay it. His boss came to him and said, "Some of my wealthy investors have cash-on-hand and I could ask them to help fund a raise for you." Again, the man said no.

He was so upset. So frazzled and unsure of what to do. So he went for a long drive to clear his mind. He wasn't happy anymore, he was feeling so low that he just couldn't figure out how to resolve the situation. And his damn boss wouldn't stop bugging him about a raise. He started thinking about his boss and got so angry that his boss would dare question his finances and try to give him a hand-out. The rage grew and the next thing he knew, his uninsured car was wrapped around a tree. He felt severe pain in both legs and arms. They were all broken.

A passer-by found him and called 911. An ambulance came for him and took him to the nearest hospital.

Not only did he not have car insurance, he didn't have health insurance. The car repair and medical bills were going to hurt as much as the four broken limbs.

His injuries required immediate surgery and a wonderful doctor, a patient and wise man, operated quickly and with the best information he had at the time. It would take a few days to know if there were any unseen injuries and infections. But the doctor stayed by the man's side, watching closely, thinking about six months out, one year out, ten years out. He knew the injuries would take years to fully heal. There would be financial, emotional and physical burdens on the man. But, for the man to recover and get back to work, the doctor had to prescribe therapy and pain medication. And, possibly, more surgeries.

And all of that cost money.

When it came time to pay the bills, the man grew furious with the kind doctor. He refused to pay the bills and ranted and raved to his boss about the greedy doctor who wasted and spent on frivolous surgeries and therapies. The man didn't think it was HIS fault or responsibility that the doctor chose the procedures he chose. And now that doctor was wanting to recoup his payment.

The man's boss told the man, "But the doctor was saving you from yourself. Why can't you just accept a raise and take care of all that YOU chose to spend? Your choices led you here. Your choices have created interest on debts that were unnecessary debts. I offered you ways to fund all the things you wanted but you refused. And now you are angrier at the doctor than you are at yourself? This isn't right."

But the man refused to listen. He refused to accept personal responsibility. He refused to acknowledge that his choices, all along, led him to this place and only he could have made choices differently.

And instead of taking the time to reflect and find ways to make amends, and still refusing to accept a salary increase, the man sat down in front of the T.V. and had a cup of tea.

And still he sits.

Andrew Card Can Suck It

TPM: In an interview with German newspaper Der Spiegel, [former Bush administration Chief of Staff Andrew] Card said that Obama has "pounded his chest" too much over the death of Osama bin Laden, particularly by going to Ground Zero earlier this week, the site of the 9/11 attacks.

"I think he has pounded his chest a little too much," Card said. "He can take pride in it, but he does not need to show it so much."

Someone might want to remind Andrew Card of this:

Question: If laying a wreath at Ground Zero and personally thanking first responders is chest pounding, how does Andrew Card describe landing on an aircraft carrier in a fighter jet and declaring "mission accomplished" eight years and counting before the mission is actually accomplished... whatever their twisted definition of "accomplished" may be?

Chest pounding, indeed. Suck it, Andrew.

And Suck It Again, Obama Haters

POSTED BY JHW22

As Broadway Carl eloquently stated in his previous post, "Suck it!" And I want to join in.

After hearing all day how the getting of Bin Laden is because of Bush, I just wanted to state, ignorant as I may seem, that I didn't know Bush invented interrogation. Funny, I thought that asking someone questions to solve a mystery had been around since at least Columbo or even Murder, She Wrote. But listening to all those who can't give credit where credit is due (to Obama), you'd think questions weren't invented until the era of Bush.

Oh, but more specifically, the torture-style of interrogation is what they mean when they say Bush policies single-handedly led to the catching of the guy THEY couldn't get until "that one" was in office. Oh, so again, I learned something today. I didn't realize Bush invented torture. Funny, I thought trying hurt something out of someone had been around since at least The Princess Bride or something.

But nope. Bush is the mastermind behind capturing the mastermind all with the ask of a question followed by a beating. All those TV shows and movies made long before Bush was President, that showed people with toothpicks in their eyelids and stuff, weren't real. Well, duh, Jen, they were movies! Duh.

So what was that the North Vietnamese did to John McCain if that wasn't torture or interrogation? Because if Bush created those techniques of intelligence-gathering, then it certainly wasn't what we thought it was.

I guess I should agree with Sarah Palin and give thanks to President BUSH. Because if he hadn't created the genius idea to ask people questions in order to get answers, where would we be today? See! I JUST asked a question. Holy shit. I should thank Bush for the ability to do that. I never could have done that without him.

But now I am perplexed. If Bush was the one who set up this way of getting information, how did the Clinton Administration get all that information on Bin Laden that the Bush Administration ignored? Oh, wait, because the premise of interrogation or that of torture didn't exist, then I guess all intelligence was moot, thus ignorable.

THAT must be why it was easy to blame Clinton for not having a stragery to get, or help Bush get, Bin Laden before 9/11. And since Dana Perino informed us that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch -- but the invention of interrogation did, THAT is why we must now bow to Bush for Bin Laden being found 10 years after 9/11 and about that many years after the invention of interrogation.

So, next question (I love this invention of asking questions thing) is: what could Bush have done better to see to it that the magical act of interrogation yielded results BEFORE a long, drawn-out, expensive war -- scratch that -- BEFORE TWO long, drawn-out, expensive warS? I am so curious to find out. Maybe when Obama completely ends the wars Bush started, we'll know what Bush invented to allow Obama to do that. Because, as I have learned today -- the black man ain't accomplished shit until the white man takes credit for it in contortionist revisionist bullshit.

The Blame Game

POSTED BY JHW22

As proud as I am of President Obama, I tend to find myself falling in the rut of hating the right more than celebrating our accomplishments on the left. I guess it has something to do with the idea that if you hear ten compliments but one criticism, you're likely to focus on that one criticism.

But what Obama and his team have been doing is attempting to highlight their accomplishments by reminding people where he started from on January 20, 2009. In doing so he's accused of still blaming Bush as if poor W didn't do anything wrong and all the messes are Obama's. Fine. Whatever. But the point remains that Obama MUST highlight the past to spotlight the present. And all presidents have done it.

Let's take a look at what W was saying in his radio address about his predecessor this far into his own administration -- well, a little further actually. Let's look at December 2002 which was four months further into his own administration than Obama is now:

Good Morning. 2002 Brought Great Challenges to America, and we had many successes at home and abroad. In 2002, our economy was still recovering from the attacks of September the 11th, 2001, and it was pulling out of a recession that began before I took office.

Many will argue that we were NOT in a recession at the end of Clinton's administration and that the actual recession began a month or so after Bush took office. But you can see where he'd want to give some of the blame to Clinton. Sure. I'll give him that. But geez, Obama can't criticize the worst recession since the Great Depression without getting in trouble for blaming Bush.

Well, surely Bush stopped blaming Clinton by the election... right?

But a senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what he called inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

I should probably add that by "election" I meant the 2008 election. Did I forget to mention that? Yes, the Bush administration was still blaming Clinton for its financial problems in July of 2008.

We could argue forever about the nuances of who is to blame and who is just making excuses. But the point stands: all presidents put blame on previous presidents and they do it for as long as they are seeking to pass bills, get elected or keep their party in power.

As a regular ol' citizen, I plan on blaming Bush for the wars and the economy until I die or until dementia sets in. But that's just me.

Setting The Bar

Once again, Jon Stewart puts things in perspective.

No Nuance

I've been doing a little more reading than writing on the blogs today, when my internet and cable wasn't out (DAMN YOU, TIME WARNER!!!) and it's pretty interesting, the blackness and whiteness of it all. No, I'm not comparing President Obama to the Senate. I'm reading the left ripping their hair out over the fact that they were duped by Mr. Hope and Change and this Afghanistan decision proves it. I'm reading the right throwing their feces at the arrogance of the Manchurian Candidate's timeline that includes a withdrawal date, because the enemy will just wait us out, even though since they live there, there can always wait us out.

Nuance has never been a forte of the far left or right. I had a conversation with someone regarding the President's speech and ultimate decision after almost three months of planning and thought. I expressed how I didn't like the idea, hated that we'd have to stay, how we've done nothing substantial there for eight years but that leaving now would be like the early 80s all over again, when we funded the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in their fight against the Soviets and then cut and ran when we needed to help them rebuild. I thought that a timetable for withdrawal was a good thing, making sure Pakistan's nukes didn't fall into Taliban hands was a good thing, how it's really no surprise as Obama has characterized Afghanistan as "the good war" as opposed to Iraq and how he voiced his opinion while still Senator to expand there.

And the response I got?: "So you're for the expansion of the war then?"

Fuck! No, I'm not for war expansion, who is? But what other choice does President Obama have? Are others privy to information behind closed doors at the White House that I am not, and can make a better decision than the President? I wasn't happy about President Bush's escalation when he decided to surge troops into Iraq either, but it seems to have worked out there and I was wrong. Obviously they know more than we do. And yet I see the left calling Obama a sellout and caving to the Pentagon. The same Obama that rejected every initial plan from the Joint Chiefs and told them to come back when they included an exit strategy.

Were they not paying attention when the President, then Senator, said he would escalate in Afghanistan during his campaign run? Or were they "duped" then too? And anyone supporting the President on this most difficult of decisions is now an Obama apologist, or has drank the Obama Kool-Aid. That seems to me to be the old Bush, "you're either with us or against us" black and white ideology. Has anyone been happy with the policies of a politician they voted for 100% of the time? Can't it be possible to still support a president for the things he's doing right and take a "wait and see" attitude with things on which you disagree?

I read things like, "This is not what I voted for" or "He's supposed to please his base." Well he's not supposed to please anyone, he's supposed to do what he thinks is right and what's best for the nation. It wasn't his base that won him the nomination, it was the independents. His base, who is now calling him worse than Bush and a sellout, were whining back them about how he was blowing the campaign by not addressing Rev. Wright immediately or letting the "pallin' around with terrorists" fester. And he kept showing us that he was smarter than any of us.

The title of David Sirota's column today made me wince. "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a president's political image?" Pretty clever, rephrasing John Kerry's question in front of a Congressional hearing during Vietnam, and in my opinion, pretty shallow to suggest that this decision was made based on Obama's image. But I would submit to Mr. Sirota that the same question could be asked had the President ordered an immediate withdrawal.

Now, if the President backs off on the withdrawal date, whether the situation on the ground dictates it or not, then I believe he may be in trouble. We might then see a one term President and I'm sure that Obama knows this. The real thorn in Obama's side isn't Afghanistan, but slow job recovery and the economic downturn. If those factors don't turn around by mid to late 2011, it might be one and done.

But there is one thing I can believe: this decision from this President was not made lightly. And I believe he made it because he thinks it's the best decision for the country.