Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Putin's Gift to McCain

As if the Iraq war and the fight against terrorism wasn't enough, Russia has decided that it's time to inject itself into the American presidential election and resurrect the Cold War, thus providing Sen. John McCain and the Republican Party even more fodder to bolster their claim to the national-security throne. Listening to right-wing radio yesterday you'd think it was 1987 and Ronald Reagan was urging Russian President Mikhail Gorbachev to "Tear down this (Berlin) wall."

But it's 2008, not 1987, and Russia's on the warpath with its invasion of the Republic of Georgia, the western-oriented Democracy to its South which gained its independence in 1991 after the break-up of the former Soviet Union. So now we have the new Red Scare, except this one's coated in black. "Russia will go on a rampage if Barack Obama's elected president," said Sirius Radio's Andrew Wilkow. Fox's Sean Hannity said of the Democratic nominee's reaction to the invasion, "He blew his 3am moment...he looked like a deer in the headlights." Rush Limbaugh said, "Obama I don't think knows where Georgia is on the map. 'Obama, where's Georgia?' He'd look for Atlanta and he'd say, 'It's right there, it's where Dr. King's church is."

What we have here is a case of Conservatives Gone Wild. And we can thank Russian President Vladamir Putin for it all. Remember him? President Bush's BFF? The guy Bush gushed over like a love-stricken schoolgirl in June 2001: "I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue....I was able to get a sense of his soul." Seven years later and can you say, Divorce Court? Though I never thought this possible, Putin's big Fuck You to the West last week makes Bush look like an even bigger ass than ever. Can it get any worse for this guy? And McCain's been quick to pounce, mocking Bush by saying of Putin, "I looked into his eyes and saw K.G.B." Oh no he di-int! Did he actually say KGB? What could possibly get McCain, who's practically old enough to have witnessed the 1917 Russian Revolution firsthand, more politically excited than talk of the KGB? It's a Republican war-monger's wet dream, for Pete's sake.

To be sure, as the battle in Georgia intensifies, McCain and Co. will relentlessly exploit this crisis in an effort to weaken Obama's chances in November. And I'm afraid it make have some impact. The major area where McCain polls far greater than Obama is with national security; that he's the more capable commander-in-chief, able to better handle both the war in Iraq and the threat from terrorists here at home. Russia's march into Georgia could not have come at a worse time politically for Obama and the Democrats. Obama needs to get off the ropes in this area and aggressively go after McCain, defining him as a reckless war-monger who was wrong on Iraq and is part of the Bushevik Empire that was wrong on Putin and Russia.


Anonymous said...

Let us not forget that Georgia attacked Ossetia first which is the home of a lot of Russian nationalists. Georgia refused to back down and Russia attacked to defend their people. The democratically/western friendly leader of Georgia poked the bear in the eye and expects us to come bail him out. The best thing we could do in this situation is let the UN handle it as best as they can and stay the hell out of it. It's not like we have the resources or a diplomatic leg to stand on here. Our best chance of avoiding WWIII over this thing is to have Obama swear in right now. McCain does not have the sense to deal with this safely.

Anonymous said...

10:51 has overlooked that part of the oil supply that we depend on is in that area and Georgia insures our getting it. It's not a simple issue unrelated to us.

And, don't worry about Obama. He's already taken McCain's position and before long he'll say that's what he said on the three occasions he has thus far commented on the situaion.

Anonymous said...


Actually, back in July Obama warned Georgia not to make offensive moves in the breakaway regions. At the same time, McCain (and his Georgian foreign agent/chief foreign policy advisor) along with Bush were expressing solidarity with Saakashvili, which we all know now was interpreted to mean the US would militarily support the Georgians against the Russians.

Fat chance of that happening. But with all the money paid by Georgia to McCain's lobbyist cum advisor (roughly a million), Saakashvili is publicly calling in that big chit and doing so by name (McCain).

McCain's arrogance and bellicosity could very well come back to bite him over this and bite him but good.

Anonymous said...

Dream on. Obama couldn't even fake a press conference on the subject.

It's 3 am. Time to answer the phone, Hillary.

Anonymous said...

Dream on?

Let's see... McCain's top foreign policy advisor has raked in over a million dollars as a registered foreign agent of Georgia. He has specifically lobbied McCain at least 50 times in the last 4 years on the subject.

Within the last few months, McCain let it be known that he has personally given assurances to Saakashvili that the US is supportive of the Georgians, as has President Bush. The US sent military advisors to Georgia and engaged in training exercises with them.

At the same time, it's been known for years that the Russians were supportive of the breakaway regions and had warned the Georgians not to engage in military actions against them. Apparently emboldened by the yapping of folks like Bush and McCain, Saakashvili thumbed his nose at the Russians and there are reports that the Georgians committed horrible atrocities against the South Ossetians including running civilians down with tanks as well as trapping them in buildings and burning them alive.

In response, we get an incredibly stupid comment from John McCain that "we are all Georgians". What a crock. He and everyone else, including Putin, knew the US was not going to directly confront the Russians with force of arms.

It's just another case of McCain running off at the mouth, talking tough to compensate for psychological shortcomings. He's a vapid, angry man who is mentally crippled and dangerous.

He has promised us more war and cannot define what his concept of "winning" is in Iraq. Every independent economic study group has called his economic plan a disaster. He does not understand the economy or how Social Security works. He has no interest in reforming the health care system and while the right derides Obama as an empty suit, the fact is Obama has provided far more detailed information on his proposals for the future of the country than McCain.

A man of his supposed experience and judgment should be wiping the floor with a man who is supposed to be inexperienced and lacking in judgment. He should be able to run an honorable campaign focused on his record of accomplishment (assuming he had a record of accomplishment). Instead all that comes from the McCain campaign and the RNC is negative attacks on Obama.

Why? Because there's no substance to McCain. He's never been anything more than an image used to buttress his ego. It's why Ronald Reagan turned on him. It's why Barry Goldwater turned on him. It's why Ross Perot turned on him. It's why fellow Senators and Congressmen of his own party publicly stated they fear his being in the White House.

He's a disaster looming on the horizon.

Anonymous said...

anonymous 10:51 am,
You said, "let us not forget that Georgia attacked Ossetia first which is the home of a lot of Russian nationalists."

First off, you need to pull your head out of your ass. Then you need to wipe the shit out of your eyes and read some history about Georgia.

Russia created the separatist regions in Georgia after Georgia left the Soviet Union. Russia started the wars in Georgia in the 1990's. Recently Russia has been giving citizenship to people in these regions so it can protect its citizens and start the current war.

This war was long in the planning on the part of Russia. Russia provoked the war and Georgia unfortunately took the bait. Russia conveniently waited until we finished the oil pipeline before starting this war. Lets be clear: This war is all about energy.

If Russia wants to entertain the idea that the Georgian separatist regions should get an opportunity to break away from Georgia and either become their own country or be annexed by Russia, then they need to extend the same opportunity to Chechnya. They won't.

By repeating the Russian propaganda that Georgia started this you are falling right into the Russian plan. Have you ever been in that part of the world ? I bet you have not. I have been to Georgia many times and I know what I'm talking about.

The United States' reaction to the Russian invasion of Georgia was disgraceful. McCain was out front, correct, and showed his knowledge and leadership. Bush and Obama were late to the game and had pitiful responses. This situation really highlights Obama's inability to be Commander-In-Chief.

Anonymous said...

The one thing that should not be underestimated is that there is a good reason why Obama polls poorly on National Security.

It is because he is unfit to conduct foreign policy. He has ZERO experience - he served as a state legislator, with his emphasis on race based issues. He spent a year in the Senate before more or less abandoning his job to run for president.

This man is singularly unfit to lead America. He has never held a job leading anybody or anything. He has never spent any significant time focused on important bread and butter issues - even as a legistlator he was more concerned with race issues than anything else.

He never played any significant role on anything important while a Senator.

His biggest claim to fame is that he is glib and was the anti-Clinton - the party surely suffers from Clinton fatigue. And even then, he could never put Hillary away.

This guy is a disaster in waiting and if Russia really was interfering in the US election, it would be playing nice so that this incompetent could be elected so that once he's in office, they can play a Carter redux.

Anonymous said...


The author of the following likely has a far deeper understanding of the history of the Caucasus region than do you:

Does Professor King need to "wipe the shit out of his eyes"?

Anonymous said...


If John McCain were so obviously more qualified, experienced and prepared for the job why:

1. is he consistently trailing in the polls?
2. running a campaign which does not focus on his accomplishments but instead focuses on his opponent?

Let's be honest. The only reason Barack Obama is called unfit to command is that he is a Democrat. John Kerry was deemed unfit to command by the GOP yet there were not the same charges made against Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush despite their being far less "qualified" under the standards currently being applied.

Anonymous said...

No, Professor King doesn't need to "wipe the shit out of his eyes". He also doesn't counter any statements that I made in my previous post. What he does do in the article that you linked is make a few ambiguous statements like:

"In addition to South Ossetia, the region of Abkhazia has also maintained de facto independence for more than a decade."

This is true, but not the whole truth. Russia started the war in Abkhazia in the early 1990's because they wanted the ports, Sokhumi, and the underground soviet era military infrastructure. Abkhazians represented a minority when Russia started that civil war. To this day Russia denies involvement in that war, but somehow the minority Abkhazians had the ability to bomb from the Sea, from the mountains, and from the air.

"...Abkhazia has called up volunteers to support the South Ossetian cause. Russia has now moved to aid the Abkhazians, who are concerned that Georgia's actions in South Ossetia were a dress rehearsal for an attack on them."

Russia started this war and Russia had the military prepared for the two pronged invasion of Russia from both Abkhazia and Ossetia well before August 6th. This war was planned for weeks or months on the Russian side.

While Bush's response was pitiful because he chose to attend Olympic games during the first couple days of this invasion, just as Putin knew he would.

Europe's response was pitiful because the EU is weak and dependent on Russian natural gas. The winter is right around the corner and as we approach 'heat season' the EU's leverage against Russia will only shrink.

Putin also knows that the US elections will prevent America from responding because the Peace-At-All-Costs Liberals will attempt to define supporters of Georgia as war mongers.

Obama is simply a deer in headlights on security. He has no idea when a decision must be made on something that he doesn't have a scripted response.

Anonymous said...


Professor King stated:

"Russia must be condemned for its unsanctioned intervention. But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force. Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up."

This completely jibes with the assertion by the poster you told to wipe the shit out of his/her eyes.

Saakashvili's over-reach was buttressed by verbal support from McCain and Bush. Obama expressly advised Saakashvili not to take offensive action.

He would have been far wiser to follow the advice of Obama.

Anonymous said...

You will not get me to defend GWB's presidency. What I will say is that at least he was a governor of a major state and had a much deeper base of experience in dealing with meat and potatoes issues.

As to Kerry, he was not a good choice simply because he lacked character. He attacked this country and called his fellows in arms murderers with the chopping off heads comments and what not. He phonied up his purple heart record so he could scoot out of Viet Nam as soon as he could. And then he had the stones to think he could run on his military experience when it was lousy and there were people out there who knew it and would say it.

Reagan was a two term governor of the largest state of the country. And he destroyed the Soviets. He restored the strenth and the pride that the armed forces had that Jimmy Carter eviscerated.

I will simply re-state whaty I said previously - the presidency would be Obama's first executive position in ANY capacity. He is fundamentally unfit to be president of the US.

Anonymous said...

"But the war began as an ill-considered move by Georgia to retake South Ossetia by force."

This is Russian propaganda. Nobody can say with 100% confidence who started this war, but when you look at the last 15 years its obvious that this is Russia flexing her brutal muscles in an attempt to destroy Georgia. The original poster (with shit in his eyes) is taking the word of the Kremlin as undeniable fact.

Ossetia is Georgia's property, just like Chechnya is Russia's property.

Russia is using this to set a very dangerous precedent. To quote Medvedev, “In accordance with the Russian Constitution, I, as the president of the Russian Federation, am obliged to defend the lives and dignity of Russian citizens wherever they are."

How do you think the world would react if America threatened to use it's military to protect the "dignity" of Americans wherever they are?

Anonymous said...

I fully expect the United States government to use its military should it become necessary to defend Americans from attack, wherever they are.

You don't?

I'm sure Professor King will immediately print a retraction for spreading Russian propaganda. Clearly he is a dupe.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Andy. Check this out.

In 2000, US military personnel donated to Bush over Gore by 2-1.

In 2004, with the war underway, Kerry closed the gap a little but Bush still raised more from uniformed men and women.

This election, servicemen and servicewomen deployed overseas are donating at a 6-1 ratio to Obama over McCain. Ron Paul is beating McCain 4-1.

Even among all service personnel, Obama is out-raising McCain.

Anonymous said...

King also said, "Saakashvili's larger goal was to lead his country into war as a form of calculated self-sacrifice, hoping that Russia's predictable overreaction would convince the West of exactly the narrative that many commentators have now taken up."

If you actually believe that Saakashvili decided to sacrifice innocent Georgian's and potentially himself to prove that Russia is a brutal country, then YOU need to pull your head out of your ass and wipe the shit out of your eyes as well. King is definitely misguided on this statement.

Unlike Ostroy I'm trying really hard not to use the Russian invasion of Georgia as a political gotcha. BUT I cannot avoid pointing out that McCain had the most correct response, Obama had the weakest and most incorrect response, and the response from the White House was somewhere in the middle of the spectrum.

Anonymous said...


You are "trying really hard"... but!

Give it up. Your grasp of the situation pales in comparison to that of Professor King. Having an opinion is cool, but there's not a serious person who is going to take the word of an anonymous poster to Ostroy's blog who claims to have been to Georgia "so he/she knows what he/she's talking about" over that of a professor who has superior knowledge of the region and no dog in this fight.

Anonymous said...

Ok, so if you think that I'm faking that I know what I'm talking about, lets debate on this blog. I can rely on facts and my personal experiences. You will be limited to the opinions of others because you dont know anything about the region.

I have direct connections in Georgia and know for a fact that the Russians just sank a Georgian ship in Poti this morning (August 14, 2008). You will have to wait until someone in the media decides to post this before it "becomes real" to you.

Anonymous said...

I made no assertion that you are faking, only that you made an anonymous claim of having been to Georgia which proves you know what you are talking about. I contrasted this anonymous claim with the standing of a well-respected professor and author who is an expert on the region.

My personal bias in this matter is only to side with the person who has real bona fides in this specific situation.

Not sure why that would come as a shock to anyone...

Anonymous said...

Obama not qualified to be President? Lest we forget the idot Bush who twice won (stole) the White House with what kind of experience?

There is no class you can take for President, it's OJT plain and simple.

Anonymous said...

Ok, I recognize your justified bias to side with someone with credentials over someone posting anonymously on some idiot's blog. I'm actually not here debating Charles King or his article. I even pointed out that nothing in his article directly conflicts with my statements.

So let us return to my original post criticizing the first poster on this blog for saying, "Let us not forget that Georgia attacked Ossetia first which is the home of a lot of Russian nationalists. "

I can counter this with the first sentence of the Charles King article, " Following a series of provocative attacks in its secessionist region of South Ossetia late last week, Georgia launched an all-out attempt to reestablish control in the tiny enclave."

How could Georgia have started this war if their response was "following a series of provocative attacks" ?

Charles King also states, "Russia illegally attacked Georgia and imperiled a small and feeble neighbor."

Now I'm definitely not saying Georgia didn't make mistakes, but we need to clearly condemn Russia for their actions. Ostroy's attempt to spin any defense of Georgia as conservative war mongering is not only delusional and dangerous, but it helps the brutal Russians and at the same time sticks a fork in the eyes of our friends in Georgia. The only reason Ostroy is doing this is for his own political gain at home and to help hide the fact that Obama is 'perceived to be' weak on security.

Anonymous said...

It should not be a surprise that Ostroy would be writing something for political gain on his political website with specific political leanings, no?

Again, I will side with the reasonable arguments of Professor King who takes both Georgia and Russia to task in his op-ed.

Regarding security perceptions, my own view is that if the MSM will begin doing their job, "perception" on who is weak and who is compromised in this situation will become crystal clear.

As a side not, what I find fascinating is that Obama is called "presumptuous" for visiting foreign heads of state. McCain has dispatched two surrogates to the hotbed of Georgia in his own little diplomatic coup de e'tat.

I guess that makes him uppity...

Anonymous said...

Maybe McCain is 'uppity' but he has had the better response when compared to both the White House and Barack Obama.

I never stated that I'm surprised by Ostroy's defense of Russia by attacking defenders of Georgia. Ostroy is a shill for the Democrats and it is for this reason that I comment on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Now, see, how else can a comment like "McCain's response has been better than both the White House and Obama" be spun any other way than shilling for a shill?

Seriously. WTF is John McCain going to do to the Russians? Kick 'em out of the G8 a year ago like he wanted, which would have only made things worse; not just with Russia but with our EU allies? Open up NATO to every country surrounding Russia? Keep antagonizing them at every turn and re-open the Cold War if not a Hot one by sending in American forces that he'll have to conscript?

John McCain is not a concensus-builder on foreign policy, which is the only proven way to deter Russia or China. He's a bellicose, loud-mouthed, neoconservative convert and exactly the wrong man to lead the United States at this time.

We don't need another cowboy with a hair-trigger runnin' the ranch.

Anonymous said...

We (the west) are in a situation where we really can't do anything to Russia.

There is no way America can rely on Europe because the EU is too dependent on Russia's natural gas supply. The EU will ultimately do whatever Russia says.

We can kick Russia out of the G8, we can discontinue military cooperation, and we can prevent them from joining the WTO. We can stop doing business with Russian companies. We can try to isolate Russia from the international community.

Besides those actions we don't have many options. If you think the Obama/EU approach of 'talks' is going to do anything I encourage you to tell me how 'talks' have turned out for the Iranian nuclear crisis.

We are in the situation where Russia is going to keep Georgia. Eventually they are going to take a piece of Ukraine. They are going to continue working with Iran and Venezuela. We have to hope China doesn't come looking for their money during all of this.

Democrats want to tap the oil reserves when it is clear to any thinking individual that we need those reserves to continue growing.

The only way the Iranian nuclear crisis is going to be resolved is for Israel to attack before Obama is sworn in. If Israel thinks The Messiah is going to win election, my bet is that they will act.

What are your ideas besides electing someone who has a track record of compromising away his base's position?

Anonymous said...

The Russians have every bit as much concern about the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons as does the West. That's why they are joining in on the sanctions.

Unity among the NATO nations has proven successful against Russia and when NATO is divided Russia has shown its willingness to exploit the division. Examples: when NATO united over missile defense, Russia quit griping about it and caved and when NATO could not come together about Georgia joining NATO, Russia jumped at the chance to fill the breach.

I don't think there's much doubt that Barack Obama is more likely to be successful in pulling NATO together again than John McCain.

BTW, do you sleep with a John Bolton doll at night?

(that's a joke, of course.)

Anonymous said...

NATO is not a secret weapon to defeat Russia in the Energy Crunch Era. I will argue that NATO has no power against Russia anymore because Russia is the significant-to-only exporter of energy for 19 of the 26 NATO member states.

The source of my information is an official EU website:

Of the 26 NATO member states, Russia is the only or main supplier of energy to the following states:
Belgium (oil),
Bulgaria (oil & gas),
Czech Republic (oil & gas),
Estonia (gas),
Germany (oil, gas, solid fuel),
Hungary (gas & oil),
Italy (oil),
Latvia (gas & oil),
Lithuania (gas & oil),
Poland (gas & oil),
Romania (oil),
Slovakia (gas & oil),

Russia is a key supplier to the following member states:
Denmark (solid fuel),
France (gas & oil),
Greece (gas & oil),
Netherlands (oil),
Slovenia (gas),
Spain (oil),
UK (oil & coal)

Anonymous said...

What the heck does "defeat" Russia mean? Is it anything like "winning" in Iraq?

Maybe I should take my joke back...

Anonymous said...

or just replace 'defeat' with 'deter'

Anonymous said...

or if the words 'defeat' or 'deter' are too tough for your liberal blood you can replace them with your own words "successful against"

Anonymous said...

All the more reason for the West to move more aggressively toward energy independence.

Everyone knows Russia has an enormous ego problem and is still led by people who have ties to the old Soviet system (think McCain and his still suffering over his personal trauma of Vietnam). And the incredible spike in oil prices has artificially boosted the Russian economy which still suffers from an outdated manufacturing sector, huge corruption, ridiculous import barriers, a weak banking system and a disproportionate concentration in Moscow of wealth and growth.

Yes they may have current leverage against Europe with regard to energy. But they've got heavy internal problems of their own and are in no way holding a dominant position over NATO.

Anonymous said...

Whoa. Too tough for my liberal blood?

I'm fine with using the word "defeat" in proper context. When an enemy needs to be defeated, like, say, Osama bin Laden, I'm all on board. Would happily slit his throat my own self.

All I asked was a clarification of your intent. That you felt the need to stereotypically demean my strength or fortitude based on ideology actually speaks to your own issues.

Anonymous said...

you felt the need to stereotypically demean me as well when you questioned if I sleep with a Bolton doll. Of course you tried to soften it by claiming it to be a joke.

I can do the same and say "the spineless Democrats will cower in fear of an angry Russian state". This is a joke because everyone knows Democrats have spinal cords.

Anonymous said...


John Bolton specifically advocates Israeli air strikes on Iran to cripple their nuclear ambition - which is what you claimed is the only way the crisis can be averted.

Thus the light-hearted comparison...

Anonymous said...

Well the year+ of 'talks' have accomplished nothing and Iran is as defiant as ever. Obama is certainly not going to stand up to Iran, so if you were Israel, what would you do ? Iran has clearly stated that Israel should be wiped off the map.

Jeremiah Wright advocates God damning America, so I guess by your logic 'light-hearted' comparisons between Obama and his former pastor of 20+ years are fair play.

Anonymous said...


I apologize for missing your response earlier.

It's quite clear you do not understand much about Texas. The governor of our state is consitutionally weak and at the time Bush was governor the state was largely run by an incredibly strong lieutenant governor (who controlls the state Senate) named Bob Bullock who was a conservative Democrat.

Bush had no friggin' idea about meat and potatoes issues. He could not even recall correctly which bills he had supported and which he had not. He was then what he remains now... a fortunate son who has successfully maintained his record of selfishness and screwing up big time in virtually every adult venture he's undertaken.

Anonymous said...

I don't have the time to look for it now but I seem to recall a piece in the Jerusalem Post just after Obama left where the reporter did a story contrasting the interviews he did with Bush, McCain and Obama regarding Middle East policy.

In the case of the former pair, each came to the interview with a litany of advisors who were consulted during the Q&A. Obama conducted the interview solo.

Anonymous said...

"Why do you presume Obama will not stand up to Iran?"

Lets start by you telling me about Obama's track record of not compromising away his base's position.

Anonymous said...


You made the presumption and accusation, not me.

Anonymous said...

Obama has hardly ever been much more than a community organizer. He was only active in the Senate for about a year. He has never sponsored any serious legislation. He has stated that he would meet with Ahmadinejad without preconditions. He failed to stand up to Hillary in regards to putting her into nomination at the Democratic Convention. He has flipped flopped on almost every promise that he made during the Primaries. He had to change his statement on the Russian invasion of Georgia three times due to his lack of foreign policy knowledge. He threw his pastor friend who was 'like family' overboard for political expedience. By his own admission his strongest foreign relations experience came from spending four years overseas as a child.

Obama is weak. I don't understand why you presume he would stand up to Iran.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for trying. You fail miserably, though.

Ronald Reagan had no foreign policy experience yet the GOP gives him full credit for ending the Cold War. (Experience argument thus shot all to hell.)

How is sponsoring legislation in Congress germane to standing up to Iran?

How is meeting with Ahmadinejad under preconditions or no preconditions evidence that Obama will not stand up to Iran?

Hillary and the convention agreement is immaterial to the issue. Supposed and unspecified flip-flops are also immaterial, unless they specifically relate to Iran or foreign policy, as is Reverend Wright.

In March, Obama expressly stated that the use of military force should not be taken off the table when dealing with Iran. Contrast that with a person who claims extensive foreign policy experience and gravitas gleefully singing "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran".

Frankly, the contrast could not be more stark. Obama seeks to build alliances (note the solid relations built with Sarkozy during Obama's visit to France and Sarkozy's role in the cease-fire between Russia and Georgia), utilize aggressive diplomacy and sanctions when necessary and resort to military action as a worst-case scenario. McCain has a long history of popping off indelicately and threatening violence (personally) or military action.

No more cowboys with complexes in charge for me...

Anonymous said...

these issues are not immaterial to the issue because Obama has no experience and no track record. These items show that Obama does not have stand up for what he believes. If he did stand up for what he believes, he would have sponsored legislation for something he believes. Instead, most of his voting record shows he voted "present" instead of taking a stand when he had a chance during his brief Legislative experience.

Anonymous said...

andrew...are you playing devils advocate or do you just enjoy being a tool?

what is happening in georgia didnt occur in a happened because the bushies have failed miserably at foreign policy

and mcoldfart would mean 4 more dangerous years of this failure

obama has to step up?? sure...but just to point out the bushies failings

Anonymous said...


It's quite clear you have no clue and have nothing more to add to the conversation than what your addled brain has managed to partially recall from the depths of right-wing spin hell.


Anonymous said...

Is Obama for offshore drilling or against it?

Is Obama for separation of church and state or against it?

Is Obama for our civil privacy rights or is he for spying on Amerian citizens?

Is Obama for the church he attended for twenty years or is he against it?

Is Obama for another kind of campaign or does he believe in the "smear.?

Does Obama think his Grandma is a racist like the typical white or does he think whites are not racists?

Is he from a poor family on food stamps and with a Kansas upbringing and its values, or were his grandparents rich enough to send him to an expensive school and did he spend a large part of his life not in Kansas but others lands with his rich Muslim stepfather?

Is he a Christian or does he believe in killing babies who are lucky enough to survive abortion?

Does he love his country or does he associate with those who bomb cities and condemn the country?

And on and on and on -- we dont know what is true about him and have no idea what he truly believes in or how he will act and what he will enact?

Anonymous said...

Cute little list. Try 70+ flip-flops on for size:

But then John McCain does not even speak for his own campaign, at least according to his chief economic advisor Dougie Holtz-Eakin.

McCrypt Keeper should have stuck to his thoughts from 8 years ago when he said, "by 2008 I think I might be ready to go down to the old soldiers home and await the cavalry charge there." Problem is he thinks the old soldiers home is in Czechoslovakia and he can't find it.

Anonymous said...

12:12 Your pathetic attempt at humor is no better than McCain's.

Anonymous said...

10:31 PM,
Unfortunately for you I will not STFU. I've been commenting on this blog since before The Messiah was even in the Senate. Surprisingly, its not a very difficult feat because Obama has virtually no experience in the Federal Government.

I've heard he was a pretty decent community organizer though.

Anonymous said...


Like Ted Stevens and yourself, length of time served does not equate to quality.

Read more, post less.

Anonymous said...

or just like Ted Kennedy I could kill a 'thread of life' and keep on truckin' like nothing happened.

Anonymous said...


"Gotta keep that sense of humor" is the McCain camp's revival of "it's just politics" from 2000.

The same "it's just politics" that reduced Cindy to tears and John to a fit of rage in South Carolina.

He has become what he loathed in 2000 and 2004.

Anonymous said...


"Thread killer".

Perfect name for you. Nice job!

Anonymous said...

No problem. I'd much rather kill a liberal thread than kill Mary Jo Kopechne like Ted Kennedy did.

Anonymous said...


"Prefer" to kill babies? I think not.

Liberals are realists who recognize that abortion is not simply going to go away by fiat. Conservatives are demagogues who use the issue of "life" to drive a wedge in the electorate and then do next to nothing legislatively to carry out their campaign pandering to evangelicals and the faux Religious Right.

Education and alternatives are the way to limit the number of abortions and that's what liberals preach. It's no coincidence that abortion and teen pregnancy rates are falling in states that emphasize the liberal approach and the reverse is the case, for the most part, in states where education and information are limited to "abstinence only".

Instead of throwing stones, conservatives should be celebrating along with liberals the fact that since 1973 the population of the country has increased by 60% but the number of abortions performed per year remains the same.

That's progress to build upon.

Anonymous said...

I support abortion but I don't like it. The main reason I support abortion is because I think to forbid legal abortions is another way to dominate women. However, I agree totally there should be education, and alternatives, adoption programs and as many methods as possible to prevent a fetus being aborted. And, as for religion, there are two religious interpretations as to when life actually begins according to the presence of the soul.

In addition to that, few caring people want women to go through the agony of back room abortions with dirty equipment and all the others horrors asociated with illegal abortion. Abortion doesn't stop just because it's illegal. Many a young girl in our country's past have been thrown out of the house because they have disgraced the family and have consequently died on some back street abortion room, or left the newly born to die in a garbage can. The scorn some daughters received in the past is akin to the current "Muslim honor killings." Nor do we want more babies having to be raised by single women who have been deserted. So the liberals are absolutely right on this issue.

However, sometimes in late-term abortion the fetus survives the abortion and is present in this world as an independently living human being. To kill that baby is murder. Adoption, is the least that could be arranged. Obama and Boxer have voted for the death of such a baby.

Anonymous said...

to move back on topic, Russia has now (8/16/2008) moved into 2 new towns that have no military infrastructure. They are razing the villages and burning down the forest in Borjomi.

Turkey has offered assistance - they offered to fly their fire fighting planes to extinguish the fires. Russia told them that their planes would be shot from the sky if they attempt to put out the fires. Russia is also preventing the Georgian firefighters from doing their jobs.

Anonymous said...


The National Right to Life Committee did a crappy job prepping you for this recycled Alan Keyes smear of Obama.

By the way, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act passed the US Senate 98-0 in 2002 with Barbara Boxer voting in favor. Check the record.

Prior and subsequent to the US Senate vote, similar but not identical, legislation came before the Illinois Senate. It was opposed by the Illinois Medical Society (surely notorious, wonton baby killers), in part, because there was some objectionable language in the bill that was not the same as the eventual federal version. When the langauge of the Illinois bill matched that of the federal provision, voila, the Medical Society objection disappeared and the bill passed.

Here's a very relevant quote from the most vocal Illinois supporter of BAIPA: “This year, the legislation is identical to the federal language which passed the U.S. Senate unanimously, even with support from Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy,” Jill Stanek, Concerned Women for America's Pro-life coordinator and key volunteer lobbyist on the measure, said today. - Illinois Leader, February 24, 2005.

Note this is nearly three years AFTER the vote at the federal level. Why were BAIPA advocates not demanding an identical bill at the state level? One they surely knew would be passed as it was the only serious objection to the bill in Illinois?

Anonymous said...

7:45 What's your point?

Anonymous said...

Meant 7:40 what's your point?

Anonymous said...


The point should be clear.

If not, what is your specific question about my response?

Anonymous said...

I want to call attention to Obama's gift to McCain.

Hillary was ridiculed and mocked by the Obama campaign because she pointed out once that she always had to answer the questions first in the debates. Now, the Obama people are screaming "unfair" because Obama had to answer first in the Forum the other night and McCain had the "unfair" advantage of listening to Obama's answers. They accuse the Forum personnel of cheating by allowing McCain to cheat.

Anonymous said...

12:00 The Pro-Life crowd are for the preservation of life; their goal is not to increase the population. It doesn't matter morally how many were born and allowed to live. The issue is those who were conceived and not allowed to live. It's the number that died that is the issue.

It's a woman's right to keep her body uninhabitated by another living being. The fetus is not her body.

Anonymous said...

7:40 There are those on TV and in print who say the bill was identical to the Fed bill so Obama did vote for the death of a child. Don't argue with me. I only know what I hear and read.

. Are you claiming that the issue of a baby that surviving an abortion was not in the bill Obama voted on? Are you instead saying that was the issue but some of the other language was objectionable and his intellecutual inclination led him to vote against the wording?

All that was clear is tht you were somehow defending Obama.

Anonymous said...

Sorry -- meant "uninhabited." Revised and part of the first remained.

Anonymous said...


There are those in print and on TV who claim the exact opposite of what you've heard, so there is an argument about fact.

I don't know you and have no interest in arguing with you, personally. But I feel completely free to and will contradict statements presented as fact which are not fact. Don't get so defensive.

There is good reason why the BAIPA did not pass the Illinois State Congress four or five times before finally passing in 2005. The most vocal Illinois proponent of the legislation admitted, in the quote provided, that the language was not the same as the federal bill until 2005.

Obama, like Clinton, has stated his disapproval of abortion. It's not something to be celebrated. But not only is it not going to go away simply due to governmental fiat, most Americans should not be interested in women being subjected to back alley or self-induced abortions which so often lead to not only the death of the fetus but sterilization or death of the woman.

If you or anyone else can accept these losses in return for the outlawing of legal, safe abortion you've completely ceded the moral high ground on the issue of "life".

Abortion is a moral issue to be determined by the individual, not the government. If it were a moral imperative government is compelled to "solve", why hasn't the GOP overturned Roe? The answer is simple: the abortion "debate" is completely manufactured and routinely recycled as a wedge issue; one the GOP cannot afford to waste away by actually passing legislation banning it.

Anonymous said...

"Abortion is a moral issue to be determined by the individual, not the government."

It should be PAID for by the individual, not the government as well. I'm sure the nanny state liberals will disagree.

Anonymous said...

Murder, theft, assault and a number of other acts are "moral issues" which are determined and controlled by the government. Why is abortion different?

Pregnancy can be prevented by birth control or abstinence. It's a condition caused by personal choices and behavior except in the case of rape and then only the male is responsible. Why should legal abortion be a means of "birth control" caused by careless behavior?

If there is an unwanted pregnancy the mother and the father should be held legally responsible for the welfare of the child including the choice of allowing adoption.

If the mother is a minor then her family must assume legal responsibility for her baby.

Anonymous said...


Do you think the Federal government subsidizes most abortions?

Look up the Hyde Amendment.

Anonymous said...


What constitutes careless behavior - sex without the intent to procreate? If that is the case, then the pill and other birth control devices have probably caused over a billion abortions in the time since Roe v. Wade. Should we ban birth control?

For an political party that continually rails against a "nanny state", it sure seems as though they're happy with the federal government's bureaucrats and officials ensuring that every pregnancy be brought to term and the wishes or ability of the parents to care for the child (financially or otherwise) be damned. Frankly, that's not in the child's best interest. It's a punitive measure on the parent for having sex.

By design, not all moral issues are legislated as acceptable or unacceptable by government (should we ban divorce?). We don't live in a theocracy, thank goodness. In the case of abortion, it is an intensely personal matter better to be left in the hands of the mother, her doctor and her conscience instead of being used as a political football.

If we truly cared about unwanted pregnancies and the children and parents involved, this national conversation would be very different. But it's not and simply provides more evidence that the talk is pure politics and not principle.

Anonymous said...

"Do you think the Federal government subsidizes most abortions?"

It doesn't matter what percentage of abortions are subsidized by the Federal government. The Federal government has no right spending tax payer money on any of the 1.6 million annual abortions in America.

source: Planned Parenthood, National Center for Health Statistics (2003)

Anonymous said...

10:07 What are you saying? Do you say tht birth control is abortion? Abortion is ending the existence of a fetus which has been created during the act of sex. Birth control pills and devices prevent conception, hence no fetus, hence no life. The state is not responsible for financing families. If you can't afford the child, avoid conceiving it.

What constitutes careless behavior is sex during the time of the possibility of conception by the female and no preventive birth control method is used. For years Catholics used the rhythm method.

The "state" has nothing to do with the family responsiblities of individuals. If you can't afford a child don't have irresponsible sex. Are you saying if the parents can't afford to take responsibility for the life they have created that the child is better off being killed? God forbid that parents should be held responsible for their indulgence in instant gratification. How long does it take to put on a condom?

Since we now don't live in a theocracy, are you saying that taking the life of another should not be a consideration of the government? Nor should theft or any other crime against another human (not to mention animals) should be the government's jurisdiction?

Divorce is not an act of depriving another of life. It's breaking a contract. The legal aspect of divorce has nothing to do with the state except as its funcion as a contract. Actually the state is not concerned with the religious aspects of marriage; a government official can perform a ceremony which legally connects a couple. The church performs the religious ceremony.

If life does not begin at conception when does it begin? Even our Presidental candidate says he doesn't know, leaving the possibility that in his thinking it does begin at conception.

Anonymous said...

one would expect that if someone doesn't know when life begins that the person would err on the side of life. Unfortunately, Democrats choose to err on the side of death.

Anonymous said...

The Center for Disease Control has differen figures on the number of abortions performed in the US each year (about half of what you quote). And since reporting is not required, all the numbers are questionable. But the important note is that in almost all estimates put the number of abortions at about the same as in 1973 despite the rise in population by 60%.

That's progress.

Here's thr problem with your reply on the Federal government paying for abortion. First of all, you don't know the answer to the question so you reply with a predictably dogmatic response. Secondly, the Hyde Amendment prevents Medicaid from funding abortions for poor women with the following exceptions: rape, incest or endagerment of the life of the mother.

Your seemingly callous disregard for victims of rape, incest or women facing death due to medical complications with the pregnancy is duly noted.

Anonymous said...


Congratulations. You win the prize for the most disjointed, illogical and fatuous response I've ever encountered at Ostroy's blog.


I'm raising a toast to you today at happy hour!

Anonymous said...


I'm guess that at least one or two Republican women have had abortions.

In fact there's a few Republican elected officials known to have driven their mistresses to the clinic.

Anonymous said...

Hey, folks.

According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, more than half of all unintended pregnancies occur while one or both partners are using some form of birth control (more than 3/4 of those by women over the age of 20).

The issue is not quite as simple as claiming "careless behavior".

Anonymous said...

2:41 PM,
So what ? Ted Kennedy has been photographed dumping diesel fuel into the Nantucket Sound. This does as much for the Democrat's environmental causes as your argument does for Republican's abortion cause.

2:34 PM,
"Your seemingly callous disregard for victims of rape, incest or women facing death due to medical complications with the pregnancy is duly noted."

And your desire for baby killing has also been duly noted.

Anonymous said...


Where is desire for abortion stated or expressed? Nowhere.

Your rhetoric is weak, as is your mind.

Anonymous said...

Hey, 3:33.

What cause? There is no real "cause". It's political theater and you really need to wake up and smell the coffee.

From back in high school (20+ years ago) I knew of three girls who had abortions and they were quietly paid for by their wealthy Republican parents who were too ashamed for their >18-year old girls to be "knocked up".

My sister works in crisis counseling and routinely encounters young women who are terrified to tell their pro-life parents and community about the baby growing inside them. Most of them, unfortunately, end up choosing abortion despite being counseled on the options available to them.

She also teaches abortion recovery classes for dealing with the emotional fall-out from abortion. It was at first surprising to find more GOP bumper stickers on the cars of the attendees but has become routine for her since she lives in a heavily GOP part of her city.

At my nephew's Baptist college last year a young lady left school because they found out she was unwed and pregnant. She aborted the child.

These examples are from my own experience and there's little reason to think they are atypical.

The fact is, most Americans do not like the idea of abortion. It's an awful and difficult choice with lifelong repercussions. At the same time, more than 60% of Americans recognize that it's not going to go away simply because Congress or states pass a law and they want the proceedure to be safe and limited to specific circumstances.

Anonymous said...

2:39 Your inability to understand a cogent argument indicates that your life is composed of too many "happy hours".

Anonymous said...

"Where is desire for abortion stated or expressed?"

Same place my "callous disregard" is expressed. Liberals always use the fringe cases when supporting abortion. I never stated that rape victims shouldn't be able to get abortions, I just don't think the Federal Government should pay for abortions.

The majority of abortions are for convenience, not incest, rape, or the mother's life being at stake.

Even if your lame fringe cases were the majority of abortions, how do you defend partial birth abortion? Partial birth abortion requires the induction of the labor process, so this is not an option when the mother's life is at risk. If the mother was a victim of rape or incest they are certainly not going to wait until the third trimester to have their partial birth abortion.

If you claim that I want rape victims to suffer through a pregnancy, I can counter claim that you want to kill babies.

Anonymous said...


If you think that was a cogent argument, your name is going to added to what is now a list being honored at happy hour.


Anonymous said...

and it's the liberal states like Vermont that do everything they can to protect the sexual predators who rape children.

Anonymous said...

Wrong. There is no statement by me indicating a desire for abortion. However you continue to express a belief the federal government should not pay for abortion in any case. This expresses a callous disregard for those with no means for pay for an abortion, even in cases where the pregnancy was imposed by force or would/could cause death on the part of the woman.

Funny that you should characterize my examples as "lame" (more callousness?). Further its funny as my "fringe" cases far outnumber the "partial birth abortions" performed in the United States.

Lastly, it's clear you are not a doctor and don't know what you are talking about when it comes to D&X or abortion in the real world. Absolutely in some cases a D&X can be performed on a woman whose life is determined to be at risk, even as late as the third trimester, and may be the best way to save her life in some cases.

And absolutely it is the case that women who were raped or were victims of incest wait until the very last minute to deal with the issue. It's an absolutely horrible outcome of the shame and fear women feel as a result of the hyper-partisan rhetoric surrounding the issue, not to mention the fact they were raped or the victim of incest in the first place.

Anonymous said...

If as one contributor to this blog said, birth control methods are not working, then the medical community should be developing methods that work. In the meantime women can abstain from sex while ovulating.

I'm a liberal Democrat and I am against abortion because I consider it murder. Pregnancy is not something beyond the control of the participants. It's a chosen condition except in the case of rape. Even then, perhaps that can be avoided at least sometimes with better planned friends or environment.

That Republicans are hypocrites and get abortions is hardly the issue when we're talking about something as serious as this. It should not be a partisan argument.

Anonymous said...


Without the means to pay for the procedure, how are very poor women to access this choice?

That's the argument being made. The federal government should not pay for ANY abortion, even in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is at risk.

Anonymous said...

What do sexual predators of children and abortion have to do with each other?

#3 on the list at happy hour.

It's gonna be a party tonight!!!

Anonymous said...


No method is foolproof save complete abstinence.

Women are responsible for their rapes due to the environment in which they place themselves? What kind of crock is that?

Women should be able to control themselves during ovulation (when biologically they are driven to procreate) but men just cannot control themselves? This is a stone age argument.

Republicans having abortions became an issue when another poster made it a Democratic issue. Your point is well taken that it should NOT be a partisan issue.

Now the question becomes since you are personally opposed to abortion do you believe it should be outlawed and why?

Anonymous said...

6:00 What comes to mind immediately is the New Yorker raped and then murdered when she went to a bar on the Lower Eastside and became tipsy. Another is the famous Central Park Jogger who was raped and murdered. I chose the famous and ones that involved murfer because of your comprehension level. However, it happens daily when a woman is in the wrong place at the wrong time or with the wrong man.

Advanced people can sublimate desires when it is not to their advantage to fulfill them. Some came remian chaste all their lives to fulfill another purpose. Discipline in restraining instincts that could be harmful is part of survival. If the woman can't resist during ovulation and there are no assured means of contraception she will get what she is driven to do: procreate. Then she will face the choice of having the child or killing it.

The human being is able to enjoy sex fully even though it is not the time to procreate. Or haven't you noticed? Some men of course do very well controlling themsleves. All men are not created equal in this respect. I think it's an intelligence "thing."

I am not the one to whom you pose your questions I just fully understood what that contributor meant and tried to help you understand.

Anonymous said...


What you, and neanderthals like yourself, fail to understand is that even if a woman puts herself in an awkward situation SHE is not at fault for a man deciding to rape her. The argument you make, and that of the person you attempt to support, is absurd and shifts blame from the rapist to the one being raped. Can you not see how utterly wrong this is?

I can just imagine that if your wife, mother, sister or daughter were raped while on the "wrong side of town" you'd forgive the rapist and blame your loved one for being so stupid as to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Clearly the ability to sublimate desire is not directly correlated to intelligence. But then it's obvious you haven't the foggiest notion of what you are talking about (see psych profile of Organized/Nonsocial criminals such as Ted Bundy and the inability of numerous highly accomplished and intelligent people such as Bill Clinton to keep it in their pants).

It's really stunning that fellow Hillary supporters from this site who spent months complaining about the misogyny of Chris Matthews and the media during the primary campaign stand idly by while women are being blamed for their rapes by knuckle-dragging simpletons.

Come on, ladies! It's OK now for us to pick up clubs and hit these hairy-backed dolts right back!

Anonymous said...

The truth is that we are discussing abortion and rape because The Messiah supporters know that the topic of this thread "Russia invading the sovereign country of Georgia" highlights one of Obama's many weaknesses - his inability to defend America's interests abroad.

Obama and the people that support him don't have the experience to confront our enemies. The Messiah better do more than select a 4 Star General as the VP, he better step down at the convention and let Hillary win the nomination. Otherwise, I'll gladly vote for Hillary in 2012.

Anonymous said...


Nice convoluted revisionism.

Obama supporters did not deviate from the topic, it was the tired Hillary/GOP crowd that deviated from the conversation and brought up their tired, recycled talking points.

People who support Obama don't have the experience to confront the enemies of the United States? Who would that be, people like Hillary Clinton?

Anonymous said...

12"35 I don't know where you live but in NYC one needs to get "street smarts" or perhaps suffer the consequences. The "Cenral Park Jogger", it is reported, was warned about jogging in the remote, deserted part of the park. She remarked that no one could determine where she jogged. She would not be intimidated, she said. She jogged there and was raped and murdered. Another case: Another victim was murdered in NY when she was surrounded by a gang in a deserted part of lower Manhattan, where she would have safer not to be; and she asked "What are you going to do? Shoot me?? She was shot. You don't challenge attackers.

The thrid case was the one in the Lower Eastside bar at three a.m. Abrams, on MSNBC kept screaming we can't blame the victim. True in these cases and all rape and murder cases that the victim has not committted the atrocity. However, if the victim had displayed "street smarts" she would not have placed herself in such danger.

A smart person doesn't cross a Manhatten avenue against the red light. Just not smart.

Surely this should be self-evident. A child is taught not to touch a hot stove.

As for intelligent choices, mental derangement in the case of Bundy, and hubris in the case of Clinton clouded their ability to think intelligently. Or, maybe there's such a thing as "moral intelligence." I haven't thought that through.

And, I couldn't agree more that it's time to "hit these hairy-backed dolts right back." If one has the ability to do that then it's safe to go in dangerous environments. If I had the skill I'd love to mountain climb. I'd be foolish to attempt it at my current level of ability.

Anonymous said...

9"10 Sure you sexist abomination. Let's get off the horror women suffer in this country and the abuse and sexism. That's a side issue they have to deal with - isn't gender destiny?

And those women in Africa who are raped routinely by the the soldiers should just get used to. They should have been born males. Brawn trumps compassion.

If women don't like it they can have a sex-change operation or let them start their own country.

Anonymous said...

Hillary for President.

Anonymous said...

Obama needs to step down. He doesn't have the experience required to be President.

Anonymous said...


What specific experience is required?

It would also be interesting to know who you voted for President in the last several elections.

Anonymous said...

Experience beyond community organizer and a year in the Senate is a great starting point.

Hillary clearly pointed out The Messiah's lack of experience during the primaries. If you want specifics, refer to any one of her speeches that address Obama's lack of experience.

Anonymous said...

Why did you not answer the second question?

Hillary pointed out the experience question during her campaign, yet she lost the nomination and now supports Obama.

Is she a hypocrite? I don't think so, but your logic suggests you do.

Anonymous said...

I don't think Hillary is a hypocrite for pointing out Obama's lack of experience. I think she was simply telling the truth.

I didn't answer "the second question" because you didn't ask a second question - you made a statement that it would "be interesting to know" who I voted for. I'm sure it would be interesting, but its not relevant to the discussion.

BTW, how much money do you have in your bank account? It would be interesting to know the answer to that question.

Anonymous said...

I didn't ask if Hillary was a hypocrite for pointing out a difference in experience. Hillary now supports Obama after calling him "unqualified". So is she just duplicitous, a hypocrite or is talk of "experience" little more than political gamesmanship?

Of course who you voted for is relevant as you've made "experience" a qualifier for being President (when it does not exist in the Constitution and there have been great Presidents who have the same amount of elected experience or less than that of Obama). It'd be fascinating to see if your voting record fit in with the Hillary/McCain meme of "experience" and it would be telling.

My bank and investment accounts do not have more money in them now than they did 8 years ago. Much like most people in the United States who are treading water or falling behind as they aren't in the top 2-5% of wage earners...

Anonymous said...

I'm a hell of a lot better off than I was 8 years ago and so is basically everybody I know. Did it ever cross your mind that you might possibly be a shit head that plays a smart person on television ?

Instead of blaming the government for your poor decision making, maybe you should look in the mirror.

Anonymous said...

In addition to my 9:57 post, I want to state that I'm not even close to the top 2-5% and have a family of 4 plus pets.

Anonymous said...

I'm talking about the real world, not the Barbie with Kids and Pets set you got when you were 9.

Did it ever cross your mind that the crowds you think are laughing with you are actually laughing at you? They are.

Even the ones in your head.

Hurts, doesn't it?

I'm not trying to be mean. I hope you will get help.


Anonymous said...

12:15 AM,
Let me guess. You are a union member and you are not much more better off now than you were 8 years ago.

My suggestion to you is to either become skilled or move over seas.

If The Messiah becomes President he is going to tax the shit out of companies and the individual job creators of America. The smart companies are going to move over seas to a more favorable tax burden and the small business owners are going to reduce their payroll to make up for the new tax burden. The unskilled union members (redundant) will lose more jobs and might even become "bitter and cling to guns and religion".

Conservatives prefer decreasing the tax burden on companies and small business owners which results in companies and small business owners spending the same money liberals would cease on growing their business, adding employees, and growing the economy.

So the choice is clear: elect The Messiah and shrink the economy while inversely increasing the nanny state or elect John McCain and grow the economy the American way.

Anonymous said...


Actually, no, I am not a union member. I live in a non-union state that is rather pro-business (especially big business). I have owned my own company for nearly 15 years, employ several people and live a good, upper-middle-class life.

I could have, in the Mitt Romney "pseudo-American" tradition, fired some of my non-key folks to ensure that my income rose nicely each of the last 8 years but chose instead to keep those folks on as there are some things more important than my personal bottom line.

Every bit of your reply speaks to what is fundamentally wrong with American business and the stilted view of modern conservatism toward it and government. As John Kenneth Galbraith said, "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."

BTW, in my state, where there is not a single Democrat elected to state-wide office and each house of the Lege is controlled by Republicans, a new business tax was instituted to close the franchise tax loophole and off-set revenue losses from property tax rate reductions.

The predicted fall-out was that small businesses like mine would be disproportionately affected, the business tax revenue would not off-set the property tax reduction nor would actual property taxes be lowered as assessments of property value and rates by the counties would rise to fill in gaps at the state level.

Every bit of this prediction has come to pass and the only beneficiaries of this new system have been the big companies that threw their weight around at the legislature and strong-armed it into law. Well, their lobbyists did pretty well, too.

John McCain loves to call himself a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. Presumably only because they share a military background and McCain likes to foster a faux image of himself as a maverick, because McCain is certainly no paragon of moral vitue like Roosevelt, is no scholar like Roosevelt, has no firmer conviction than his own ambition (self-admitted by the way in one of his books), does not support organized labor like Roosevelt did nor does he any longer rail against corporate greed like Roosevelt.

Putting faith in the image that is John McCain only results in disappointment. Barry Goldwater, Ross Perot and Ronald Reagan, not to mention McCain's first wife, all found this out.

I sure hope we as a country don't have to suffer his predictable disappointment.

Anonymous said...

"I live in a non-union state that is rather pro-business (especially big business). I have owned my own company for nearly 15 years, employ several people and live a good, upper-middle-class life."

And you are not better off today than you were 8 years ago? You must be a pretty piss poor entrepreneur.

Anonymous said...

Apparently your reading comprehension is rather poor or you simply quit reading when you thought you could get in a shot.

Go read the second paragraph of what I wrote for your answer. Better yet, read the whole thing. It's pretty thorough in its denunciation of your business and political perspective.

Piss poor entrepreneurs don't last in the same business for 15 years, my friend. In fact, most start-ups don't survive more than 4 years.

Anonymous said...

I will reiterate my statement of don't blame the government for your decision making.

You are choosing to not be better off than you were 8 years ago to retain your employee base. While I agree that this is very admirable of you, its not the government's fault that you made this decision.

I can spend all day kicking a wall, but it would be silly of me to complain that my foot hurts the next day.

Anonymous said...

I did not blame the government for my personal decisions.

I absolutely *will* blame the Republican state government where I live for passing a bill they claimed would bring property tax relief to the average citizen and would put the burden of replacing that revenue on businesses. It was farcical, passed the legislature anyway and every single obvious complaint about it came to pass. Property tax bills were not reduced and business tax burdens were disproportionately assumed by medium-sized businesses and did not come close to replacing lost property tax revenue at the state level.

Your analogy with the wall is flawed. The government is not static. It is an active part of our society and makes decisions which directly impact business and the citizens of a city, county, state and/or our country.