About Me

Name: Charles Mudgeon
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Search

Why Fred Thompson Scares Me

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:24:14 PM
We've never had a president named Fred.  ("You can look it up, it won't be there." - Casey Stengel)

There are sound reasons for this.  Can you imagine a Fred Washington, or a Fred Jefferson, or a Fred Lincoln, or a Fred Delano Roosevelt, or a Fred Fitzgerald Kennedy, or a Fred Reagan?  Of course not.  It just doesn't flow.  So why is a Fred Thompson any different?

Try this experiment.  Pull someone aside and tell them to say "Fred" to you.  When they do it, what is the first image that pops into your mind?  Fred Flintstone?  Haven't we had enough cartoon characters playing presidents?  Freddie the Freeloader?  C'mon.  How about Freddie Kruger?  I've dealt with enough nightmares on Pennsylvania Avenue in my lifetime, thank you very much.  I don't need political cartoonists making this connection and rubbing it in.

When I was growing up in New York City, there was a kid living on my block named Fred.  He had notoriously dirty ears.  I'm sure you read about it in the papers.  The neighborhood ladies would start conversations with him by yelling, "CAN YOU HEAR ME FREDDY?"  The first time a president named Fred resisted the will of the people, that's all I would think of:  CAN YOU HEAR ME FREDDY?

And then there is our Fred.  My wife, Mrs. Bubbles Mudgeon, has Crohn's disease.  About two years ago, her colon ruptured and she came home from the hospital with an ileostomy (look it up yourself).  In effect, the doctor who did the operation said, and I'll keep this as non-technical as possible, "I'm going to rip you a new one."  Almost immediately, Bubbles named the "new one" Fred.

Now certainly, just because our Fred is a "new one" doesn't mean everyone named Fred is associated with that particular part of the anatomy.  But it is the first thing I think of when I hear the name.

And if Fred Thompson should happen to get the nomination, it would be just my luck that he would choose someone like Andrew Card as his running mate.  Then I would be destined to think of the "ticket" in terms of "Anus and Andy."

As of this moment, of those who have a legitimate shot of getting the nomination, Fred Thompson is my man.  In the past I have been high on many a candidate, only to be turned off as the convention nears and the afore mentioned candidate turned weaselly to secure the nomination.  In Thompson's case, I hope what I think I see is what I'm going to get.

But please, Fred, Senator Thompson, please ix-nay the Ed-fray irst-fray ame-nay.  Change it to Zachary, or Millard, or Chester, or Grover, or Calvin - something; anything that isn't Fred.  Don't make it any more difficult than necessary for me to support you.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Poll: 14% of Americans Are Idiots

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Saturday, June 23, 2007 8:56:04 AM
According to a recent Gallup poll, 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a bit of confidence in Congress.

These same people fall into the following categories:  One sandwich shy of making it to the top floor; one French fry shy of finding their heinies with both hands in their back pockets; their solar panels are half a bubble off plumb; not the brightest bulbs in the combo meals; 24 cents short of a dead hamster; a few clowns short of a whole duck; their invitation to the MENSA picnic only has one oar in the water.

It might be tempting to assume that the other 86% of the people have their wits about them.  That, I believe, would be a mistake.  Just because 14% of Americans are certifiable, doesn't mean that the rest are coherent and living in the real world.  They should be watched and watched closely.  Confidence in Congress is an absolute measure, but many other criteria may be used to determine ones degree of idiocy.

But let us examine the people who have conned 14% of Americans into having "a great deal or quite a bit of confidence" in - our glorious leaders who populate the United States Congress.

Every two years hundreds of U.S. citizens attempt to gain or retain access to the hallowed halls of the legislative branch of our government, knowing full well that a prime job description is to take money or other property from people (under threat of violence) in order to make it available to someone else.  Oh, yeah, that gives me "a great deal or quite a bit of confidence" them.

And what do they do once in office?  They hire spouses because everyone knows they need trusted advisors to confide in.  The fact that it increases their incomes at public expense apparently should not be considered.

Their children suddenly become experts at lobbying.  They leave their jobs bagging groceries and take Washington positions with lobbying firms for six-figure salaries.  Who do you suppose they will lobby?  Surely not mommy or daddy.

They take fact-finding trips all over the world.  Usually it works out so that facts need to be found in warmer climates when it is January in Washington, and cooler climates when it is July in Washington.  But that's just a coincidence - when facts need to be found, facts need to be found.  A BOLO must be issued.  Interestingly enough, facts are seldom looked for in places like Calcutta or Bangladesh.

The trips (sometimes called junkets by cynics) are paid for by the taxpayer or by some special interest group who is doing it out of the goodness of its special interest heart and expects absolutely nothing in return. 

If you believe that, consider yourself one of the 14%.

Once in office, certain things are expected from our various representatives to our federal government. Don't get the wrong idea. I'm not talking about developing a sound tax, energy, environmental or immigration policy, or a plan to eliminate the educational gap between the U.S. and the other developed nations of the world - no, no, nothing as trivial as that. They must bring home the legislative directives, which is a euphemism formerly known as earmarks, which is a euphemism formerly known as pork barrel spending, which is a euphemism that opens the door to corruption.  Anyone in Congress, who votes for another's unneeded "legislative directive" in order to secure his own unneeded "legislative directive" so that he/she can more easily be re-elected, is corrupt.

People in Congress who want to be re-elected raise money in order to campaign.  Many of them take money from large contributors, then put their spouse on the campaign committee at an enormous salary.  In some circles, this would be known as laundering money to cover taking a bribe.  In some circles, this would be illegal.  This, however, is not the case in Congress.  Congress routinely exempts itself from the laws it imposes on the rest of us.

Nonetheless, 14% of the people have "a great deal or quite a bit of confidence" in them.  Fine.  But remember what Will Rogers said:  "Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate; now what's going to happen to us with a Senate and a House?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Fatwas, Breast Feeding and the Workplace

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Wednesday, June 13, 2007 6:09:21 PM
Dave Berry always says, "I am not making this up."  Art Buchwald said you can't do satire anymore because the whole world is a satire.  When I tell my wife, Mrs. Bubbles Mudgeon, about something I have read, I always have to specify whether it came from "The Onion" or not - otherwise she can't tell the difference.

Here's what happened. (And if you don't believe me, check here):

Islam doesn't allow unmarried or unrelated men and women to be together in a public place.  So in Muslim countries, if you intend to employ both men and women, keeping them apart can be a problem.  In Cairo, Egypt it has been determined that if you can come up with some family ties between male and female workers, everything will be cool.

As a solution, a fatwa has been issued:  If the woman breast feeds her male co-workers five times, a family tie will be established.  I can see as how that may well be the case.

In the blogging business, this is known as a hanging curve ball.  Talk about thinking outside the box - so to speak.  Very few paradigms have been shifted to this extent.

But if you are family after five breast feedings, the question arises:  What about the first four times?  Aren't men and women "together" during the first four breast feedings?  And isn't that breaking the rules?  Just asking.  But I'm sure there is another fatwa in the making that will cover this small discrepancy.

This has some potential to catch on in non-Muslim countries, too.  Male workers will go up to female workers and say, "This business says it's one big happy family.  So will you breast feed me five times?"  Be sure and let me know how that works out for you.

And female workers will say, "This job has such a family atmosphere.  Would you like me to breast feed you five times?"  It seems like such a swell idea, I'll bet the men and women have equal success in securing their new family links.

And don't worry about your employer.  I'm sure he will understand that refusing to allow you to establish your family ties is tantamount to fostering a hostile work environment.  Anyway, the guy is probably a Republican and, therefore, very pro-family.  He'll most likely be looking forward to generating a few distant cousins of his own.

The downside, of course, would be that nepotism would run rampant.

I can see that you are skeptical.  How is it possible for such a bazaar idea, even though it is based on a religious teaching, to catch on in Muslim countries, let alone the rest of the world?

To you naysayers I ask:  Does the word "circumcision" mean anything to you?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Sopranos' Swan Song

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 1:56:09 PM
Many people are upset by the way the HBO series "The Sopranos" ended the other night.  I'm not one of them.

I watched "The Sopranos" about six times.  Frankly, it reminded me of a Shania Twain song.  That is, like every Shania Twain song, when you've experienced one "Sopranos" episode, you've pretty much experienced them all.

It reminded me of "The Goldbergs" on steroids.  (Don't ask mommy about that one.  Go straight for grandma.  It's "Kukla, Fran & Ollie," "Toast of the Town" black and white era when most places didn't even have TV stations in the area - way before even Dick Clark showed up.  It's that old.)

"The Sopranos" went into the interpersonal relationships of an Italian family and an Italian "family."  Big deal.  I've been dealing with the interpersonal relationships of an Italian family all my life.  If you put my ethnicity on a pie chart, half of the pie would be Italian - not the Mudgeon half.  I'm not sure what the other half is, but it pays me protection money.  (Insert rimshot here.)

Obviously, I have no axe to grind with a story about an Italian family.  I even have the theme from "The Godfather" as a ringtone on my phone.  That doesn't exactly make my bones, but it's as close as I intend to come to it.

The thing is, I don't care about the interpersonal relationships of a fictional Italian family, or Italian "family."  Go run your rackets; go whack your rivals; go squeeze some poor slob into making payoffs; go payoff the cops - do whatever it is that you do, when you do what you do, but don't subject me to your kids, wife and therapist unless you're planning to rub them out.  I don't care.

I heard what are otherwise perfectly rational people theorizing about the Soprano family eating onion rings in the final scene and what deep seated meaning this could hold.  Well, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.  And sometimes onion rings are just onion rings.  No one reported Elton John singing "Circle of Life" during the scene, so I wouldn't waist much time on it.

Many people want to know what happened when the final scene faded to black.  To shut them up, here's what happened:  A torrent of gunshots rang out and every member of the Soprano family, as well as the Soprano "family" were killed.  This puts an end to any plot lines that may have been dangling.  The only question is who did it.

My guess is that it was all the people who had finally had enough of this garbage.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Random Thought

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Tuesday, June 12, 2007 9:44:40 AM
President Bush got a rock star's welcome in Albania on Sunday.  What do you suppose he said in his speech to get such a reaction?  "Ich bin ein Albanian?"
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Paris Hilton and the Twin Towers of Doom

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, June 11, 2007 2:21:48 PM
If you never heard of Paris Hilton, congratulations on the recent recovery from your coma.  Unfortunately, by the time you know who Paris Hilton is, you may well wish for a relapse.

Paris Hilton is an heiress, or an airhead, or both.  She is young, more striking than beautiful, due to the effects of great wealth combining with wardrobe, makeup, hair style and an attitude conveying a sense of entitlement.  She makes Twiggy look voluptuous.  If you are too young to remember Twiggy, go ask your mommy.

Recently, Miss Hilton got jammed up with the law and was sentenced to a stretch in the pokey.  Poor baby.  The judge sentenced her to 45 days in the slammer, which he reduced to 20+ days.  He gave specific instructions that she was to serve the time in jail, with no home release, no monitoring device - just jail time.

Then the sheriff promptly released her from jail to confinement in her palatial home with a monitoring device.

What followed is the first nationally televised urinating contest (I'm too refined to say pissing contest.) between the presiding judge on the case and the sheriff.  In essence, after translating all of the legalese into English, the judge said to the sheriff, "Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries."

The sheriff, not to be out-flanked, said, "Oh, yeah?"

The media has been covering all this excitement with second-by-second play-by-play.  I know they say "don't shoot the messenger."  But why not?  Where does it say that?  I think all this "don't shoot the messenger" stuff was put out by the International Brotherhood of Messengers.  At some point, rational and sane people must take a stand in order to stay that way.  Enough is enough, already.  But I digress.

Two camps of talking heads have formed:  One camp says Paris Hilton has flaunted the law (Actually many said she "flauted" the law - whatever that means.) with all her shenanigans and ought to be made to pay the price.  This group is primarily made up of prosecutors, ex-prosecutors and ex-judges.  No big shock there.

The other group is made up of high-priced defense attorneys (no doubt looking for a future paycheck signed by a Hilton) who claim Paris is being treated more harshly than the average citizen would be.  Surprise.  But also in this group is Ann Coulter who apparently has some sort of symbiotic relationship with Paris based on body type.

The actions of the sheriff were met with such national outrage for letting Miss Hilton serve her jail time in the lap of luxury that many suspected some sort of quid pro quo.  And I must say I wouldn't be astonished to learn many quid were exchanged for this particular pro quo.

The reason Paris didn't want to be in the jail is that it upset her.  She didn't like it one little bit.  And she preferred to be at home if she must pay this silly debt to society.  Okay, I'm not a big expert on the American justice system, but it seems to me that if you were to poll all of the inmates in all of America's jails, I'll bet a majority, perhaps even a significant majority, would say the same thing.  It's just a hunch, but that's what I think.

At this point, all is right with the world.  The judge, reacting to public pressure, got Paris into LA's Twin Towers correctional facility.  The sheriff caved into the same public pressure.  Paris is acting like the spoiled brat she is because she didn't get her way for what must be the first time in her life.  Most likely Paris Hilton has never heard the word no and her name in the same sentence.

We've been lucky, though.  All this media attention given Paris Hilton hasn't detracted from any other news stories of major importance.  If you don't count the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff not being reappointed, trouble with the space shuttle's thermal covering, an immigration bill collapsing of its own weight, Russia making waves over defensive missiles to be placed in Poland, floundering hopefuls in presidential politics, an increasing death rate in Iraq, tensions at the G8 summit, widening investigations concerning homeland terror plots, the suspension of passport rules to Mexico and Canada, a potential pardon for "Scooter" Libby, China retaliating against U.S. goods, high gas prices, low consumer confidence, nuclear weapons in Iran, and on, and on, and on.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ClapSo - Not Such a Big Mudgeon Fan

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Friday, June 08, 2007 3:05:15 PM
I recently got the following comment from a gentleman who goes by the name of ClapSo.  He was commenting on a blog posting I made entitled "Bucket and Universal Health Care."  You can read the posting here.  It strikes me he is less than thrilled with my premise.  Here is what he said:

"Uhhhh, grampa baby. It seems to me that “shortages, higher prices and a bureaucracy” describes the present “free market” health care system. how is the same going to be any different? Perhaps you should rethink a bit huh? Oh and gramps, of course YOU don’t use that evil socialized medical program called MEDICARE, do you? Why, that would make you a hypocrite wouldn’t it?"

Well ClapSo, there is an old Japanese proverb that says, "If you believe everything you read, better not read."  And there is an old Mudgeon proverb that says, "If you're going to get this spastic reading my blog, better not read it."  Allowing a few paragraphs to get you so apoplectic will diminish the chances of you making it to my age.

ClapSo, my dear friend, (I learned this kind of talk watching CSPAN-2, when Republicans and Democrats engage each other in condescending conversation.) let me 'splain some stuff to you.  And since you are obviously a product of the public school system, I'll use small words so that you won't have trouble understanding the thrust of what I'm saying.

First of all "grampa baby" or "gramps" is not the proper way to address your elders (that means someone who is older that you are).  I prefer "Oh great and wise Grandfather Mudgeon dear."  Although given your obvious animosity (that means hatred) toward me, you can omit the "dear" part.

Secondly, dear ClapSo, your assertion (that means a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason) that '“shortages, higher prices and a bureaucracy” describes the present “free market” health care system,'  is so far off base it causes me to smirk in your general direction.

Some first hand knowledge:  I know a fellow from England who is working in my town.  He is legal, with a green card and everything.  Anyway, his mother came to visit.  She had gall bladder problems.  The English socialized medical system would have been able to operate nine mounts later - no chance of getting it done sooner.  She had severe problems while she was in the U.S.  Guess what?  She was operated on here within three days.  Was it more expensive than it would have been in England?  You betchum, Red ClapSo.  But she was alive and pain free.  I sincerely hope, dear ClapSo, that you never find yourself in a socialized medicine program when you need immediate help.

And describing our present system as “free market” is ludicrous (that means ridiculously laughable).  What we have is half way between a free market and socialism - and it's moving ever closer to the wrong end of the scale.

"Oh and gramps, of course YOU don’t use that evil socialized medical program called MEDICARE, do you? Why, that would make you a hypocrite wouldn’t it?"  For the record (why I feel the need to explain anything to a presumptive - look that one up yourself - insignificant little gnat whose opinion will not cause me to lose any sleep, is beyond me) my wife, Mrs. Bubbles Mudgeon, and I have a full blown private medical plan.  Not a supplemental plan, but full, no deductable insurance complete with prescription coverage that Medicare can only fantasize (that means to create in one's daydreams - but you probably knew that one) about.  We don't need "that evil socialized medical program called MEDICARE."  And believe me; the premiums would be considerably cheaper if Medicare didn't exist and government hadn't been screwing up the marketplace for the last forty years.

Also for the record, we do have Medicare.  We paid into it from the inception (that means beginning) of the program because we were forced to at the point of a gun and, by jingo-by jango, we're not throwing that money away whether you like it or not.  We will recoup our involuntary ( that means not by one's own choice) investment.  If that makes us hypocrites in your eyes, dear ClapSo, guess what?  You better look up the definition of hypocrite.

Please, dear ClapSo, don't annoy me with any more of your drivel.  You will be deservedly and totally ignored.

But remember this:  Sticks and stones will break my bones, but with universal health care I may die before getting any treatment.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Goodbye, Montpelier

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:59:43 PM
The word on the Montpelier street is Vermont wants to secede from the United States.  Terrific.  Go for it.  Make it so, Number One.  Be gone with you.  Good riddance.  So long, it's been good to know ya.  Out, out damn spot.  Don't let the door hit you in the keister.  Auf Wiedersehen.  Adios, mo.......  Ok, we'll skip that one, but you get the gist.

Name one person that has come out of Vermont since Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys.  Go ahead, try.

If you said Howard Dean (EEEEAAHHHH!!), go to your room.  No soup for you.  And you shall have no pie.

The only thing in Vermont of any significance is the Trapp Family Lodge in Stowe.  But was Maria von Trapp born in Vermont?  Nooooooo.  She was an import.

Vermont residents consist of the likes of Larry, his brother Darryl and his other brother Darryl along with others of their ilk.  If we are looking for stereotypes, we don't need Vermont to fill the need.  There is always West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama and Indiana.  We can easily get by without Vermont.  As Casey Stengel used to say, "You can look it up.  It won't be there."

From a geographical stand point, the only useful purpose Vermont fills is to keep the good folks of New Hampshire from having to deal directly with the New Yorkers.  I realize that, in itself, may be a reason to keep Vermont around, but secession wouldn't alter the map in any way.  Rest easy, New Hampshire.

There will be a problem with border security.  Perhaps a fence all the way around Vermont will keep ravaging, newly constituted "illegal aliens" from tacking buckets on every unprotected maple tree.  Maybe a V(ermont)-Visa can be issued to hard working Vermonters (Vermontites?) (Vermin?) (What?) who sneak into this country so as to be able to feed their families.  There may be up to several dozen natives of Vermont who can actually do useful work outside of Vermont's borders.

Unquestionably, the best reason to let Vermont secede is that we would no longer have to put up with Senator Patrick Leahy.  Due to a wonderful invention called the remote mute button, I have not actually had to listen to this smug, full-of-himself, overly partisan reptile for years.  However, occasionally I still have to see him so I know when to turn the sound back on.  This is covered by the five-second rule.  If I see him for less than five seconds, everything is cool.  But if I'm tricked into looking at him for more than five seconds, I'm forced to take a shower - or use some other means of decontamination.

You may think all of this is pretty stupid.  Could be.  But I'm not the one who brought up secession.  They did.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stop Clapping - Tinkerbelle Died

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Monday, June 04, 2007 2:56:08 PM
"In the final analysis, it is their war.  They are the ones who have to win it or lose it."  --  John F. Kennedy, September 2, 1963

I keep hearing that Iraq is not Vietnam.  Of course it isn't.  That was then, this is now.  Vietnam had communists, Iraq has Islamic fascists.  Iraq has oil, Vietnam doesn't.

But the cultures of Vietnam and Iraq have this in common:  We didn't and don't really have a handle them.  We aren't very good at figuring out what people of different cultures think is important.  What is meaningful to us is not always a big deal to them relative to their other concerns.

The abstract notions of liberty, free trade, individual responsibility and property rights to a culture that has not experienced and fought for such abstractions for the past hundreds of years as we have are, I suspect, puzzling.  And yet, I am told that the Iraqi people are well educated.  To date I have seen little evidence of this - and I find that puzzling.

Is it possible that the things the Iraqi people want and what we want for them are not interchangeable?  The Kurds seem to be in sync with us, but they are a small portion of Iraq's population.  Do the rest of the people want what we want?  Or are they so splintered between secularist and religious factions that our goals are suppressed.  Is democracy a priority for them?  To date I have seen little evidence of this - and I find that puzzling.

Let me be clear about one thing:  Nothing I have said or will say should be construed as criticism of our men and women in uniform.  To paraphrase Tom Clancy, these are the folks who stand ready to do violence on my behalf so that I can sleep peacefully in my bed at night.  As far as I am concerned, everybody who sees someone in uniform should go up to them and say, "Thank you."  We ought to support them morally, spiritually and monetarily.  They are winners.

But we are asking them to do something outside their area of expertise.  We are asking them to impose motherhood, apple pie and the American way on a population that to date has shown no particular desire to go along.  But it is their war.  To win or lose, it is their war.

Here at home the natives are restless.  Americans like winners - especially quick winners - at least winners who have shown some progress.  What if, during the early days of World War II, the allied armies had been bogged down in North Africa until 1946?  At that rate, D-Day would be happening about now.  Would we have had the same zeal to defeat fascism and to continue the struggle?  Or would we have been whining to bring the troops home?  Would we have voted on spending bills every three months?  Would we have had our entire Congress trying to micro-manage the war?  I wonder.

None of that happened.  Our armies liberated many populations fairly quickly - not as quickly as our present day forces liberated Iraq, but fairly quickly.  The difference is, those people not only wanted to be liberated but they knew what to do after they were liberated.  Their cultures returned easily to what had been fostered in their DNA: free, open societies.  The DNA of the Iraqi culture seems befuddled by such concepts - constrained by over two thousand years of history.

It is the Iraqi's war to win or lose.  We can, and probably should help.  But our help should be more and more in an advisory capacity and less and less a military one.

For those who say the terrorists will follow us home, I say they already have.  How many plots have been foiled since September 11, 2001?  Within the last week a plan to attack JFK airport was uncovered.  Fortunately, to date, none of those charged with planning or executing the plots have had keys to the Mensa executive lounge, so they have been tripped up.  So far.

Let's reroute some of that military expense to increase covert abilities, beef up special forces and lock down our southern border.  Further, let's forcefully use the military to retaliate against everyone, anyone, nation or individual, who assists in the planning or implementation of any action against us.

We have done what we can in Iraq.  We have done more than any other country even considered doing.  Wishful thinking will not infuse one thousand years of our culture into a reluctant Islamic nation.  Tinkerbelle is dead.  We need to stop clapping.

We should get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Morphing W. to Kevorkian

Posted by Charles Mudgeon on Friday, June 01, 2007 12:17:02 PM
Welcome to the assisted suicide of a great political party.  The part of Jack Kevorhian is ably played by George W. Bush.

The president's father, George Herbert Walker Bush, always insists his son is a good and decent man.  Okay, both father and son fall into that category.  But that says nothing about the current president's ability to perform as head of a political movement with a clear philosophical vision of the proper direction to take the country.

In this regard, George Herbert Walker Bush is in no position to render a verdict - and possibly, he is in no position to offer an opinion.

George W. Bush is killing the Republican Party.  And far too many politicians who claim to be Republicans are gleefully following him as loyal members of the Lemming Party might.  The Republican Party of 2007 is indistinguishable from the right-of-center portion of the Democrat Party - although, admittedly, there are not many Democrats filling that role.

After 12 years of the senior Bush and the Clintons, followed by September 11, 2001, history and a hopeful nation handed the president a perfectly good ball.  And he dropped it.  Then he fumbled it. Then he kicked it away.  Now he says, "Ball?  What ball?  I don't see a ball.  Do you see a ball?"

The man has spent money like Bill Clinton in a whore house.  He has created bureaucracies that would have FDR enviously orgasmic.  He has gone to war in Iraq flogging the only reason that many of us would buy as acceptable - Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that could, and probably would be used against Americans.  (By the way, how did that work out?)  He has refused to win the peace in Iraq and apparently has no plan to do so - if you don't count his lucky rabbit's foot.  His handling of the devistation caused by Hurricane Katrina can be summed up in one word: inept.  His famed "loyalty" has resulted in political cronies who have Peter Principled out and left an administration filled with hacks.  He will not take the necessary steps to secure our border with Mexico - and accuses those who criticize him as not wanting what is best for America.

George W. Bush is acting more like a third world despot than a president of the United States.  He has abandoned conservatism and principles while embracing spending, big government and appeasement of his enemies at the expense of his friends.

It is time for that portion of the Republican Party - the portion that still has some principles and the ability to look itself in the mirror to separate itself from this president.  Loyalty is a two-way street.  Conservatives have not changed.  This president has.  He has taken the Republican Party hostage and will kill it as surely as a suicide bomber would.

Look around.  Kevorkian is near somewhere.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »