Andy McCarthy tells his fellow Cornerites that they’re all insane, then levels his gimlet-eyed, prosecutorial gaze at McCain, and shouts, J’accuse!

We have a disaster here — which is what you should expect when you delegate a non-conservative to make the conservative (nay, the American) case.  [...]

Now, as the night went along, did you get the impression that Obama comes from the radical Left?  Did you sense that he funded Leftist causes to the tune of tens of millions of dollars?  Would you have guessed that he’s pals with a guy who brags about bombing the Pentagon?  Would you have guessed that he helped underwrite raging anti-Semites?  Would you come away thinking, “Gee, he’s proposing to transfer nearly a trillion dollars of wealth to third-world dictators through the UN”? [...]

Great.  Memo to McCain Campaign:  Someone is either a terrorist sympathizer or he isn’t; someone is either disqualified as a terrorist sympathizer or he’s qualified for public office.  You helped portray Obama as a clealy qualified presidential candidate who would fight terrorists.If that’s what the public thinks, good luck trying to win this thing.

With due respect, I think tonight was a disaster for our side.  I’m dumbfounded that no one else seems to think so.  Obama did everything he needed to do, McCain did nothing he needed to do.  What am I missing?

I think it’s your soul, Andy.  You might want to check Lost and Found in the morning.

I Pity the Fool | 16 Comments »

Two consecutive posts from Erick Erickson at RedState:

I Pity the Fool | 3 Comments »

Over at No Quarter, the inhabitants linger on the veranda as the sun slides behind the serried rows of rubber trees, sipping their gin and quinine water and shifting restlessly in the creaking wicker as a taunt, dusky-fleshed native man saunters insolently by.  “If only,” they think, “for just one mad, magical night of feral abandon, he could be…White Like Us!”

I have been following the furor over Barack’s reticence to provide a bona fide copy of his birth certificate with some interest.  I have a different take.  I think the genuine certificate shows his race as “White.”
…
Let’s face it, Obama is not some kid from the hood. He was raised as a privileged guy by white grandparents (from Kansas no less)

Nothing says The Social Register like the ability to trace one’s pedigree back to Wichita.

He was an undercover white guy with beautiful chocolate skin, and no one realized who he really was.

Uh, yeah.  I think this is the part where you’re supposed to break into a chorus of “I Don’t Know How to Love Him.”

At Columbia, he fell under the tutelage of liberal white mentors and he accepted their value system while learning how to use his outward African appearance against both blacks and whites.

NICK FURY:  Mr. Obama, I want to talk to you about the Avengers Initiative!

OBAMA:  But…I have no super powers.

NICK FURY:  On the contrary, Mr. Obama.  Your skin — as smooth as velvet, as deep and rich as milk chocolate — is the deadliest weapon known to man!

Obama could have gone any place after Harvard Law, but he chose to go back to Chicago, where concentrations of highly politicized, working class blacks awaited a charismatic leader. … Kind of like an old style Soviet illegal (e.g., someone who hid their past and made people believe they were something else) building his cover before conducting operational activity. He marries a well-educated radical black lady who comes to realize who he really is, a white boy “reverse passing” as black. But she also comes to realize the potential for power in this.

In Wright’s church, Obama…was looking around and figuring out how to use his blackness to fool the suckers around him…Perhaps he began to identify with them a bit, but he never lost sight of his superiority over them and how this allowed him to unwittingly manipulate them. Just like an old style Soviet “illegal.”

My God, man!  Do you realize what you’re saying…?!  Barack Obama has stolen his entire presidential campaign from the 1977 Charles Bronson movie Telefon!

Now, between black pride and white guilt…

…lies Obsession?

…he’s faked them, and us, out. He can even allow himself the luxury of arrogance in claiming that he can redraw the political map because all blacks will vote for him.

Far fetched? Perhaps, but this explanation makes a bit of sense when you add it all up. Why is he hiding his grandmother? Why does he totally disown his mother and grandparents and write a book about his father, a bigamist who deserted him as an infant, as an inspiration for his life? And now, with the Presidency in his grasp, he resurrects his Kansas grandparents, his single white mother, and says nothing about his absentee, polygamist Kenyan father. Can you say, “bamboozle?”

Can you say, “Sir, this is Blockbuster.  Are you aware that your copies of The Manchurian Candidate and Mandingo are eight weeks overdue?”

Well, in a situation like this, there’s only one person to call:

h/t Memeorandum

I Pity the Fool | 8 Comments »

Last night I finally caught up with Scott McClellan’s appearance on The Daily Show, and was particularly enthralled by the flashbacks to his days as Press Secretary, when he bestrode the White House briefing room like a gibbering, bipedal sweat gland.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I have a healthy respect for craftsmanship, but there’s just something grimly fascinating about watching a bad liar lie for a living — lacking the fluent sociopathy of his predecessor, McClellan was reduced to glaze-eyed, stammering repetitions of the daily talking points — because even though you know what he’s going to say before he says it, there remains a certain Damoclean element of suspense. Unlike the glacial performance of Ari Fleischer, Scott’s briefings seemed to buzz with a constant threat — or promise — that things could go horribly wrong at any moment; that he was always just one unusually aggressive query away from a total freak-out or an irrecoverable fugue state. It was entertaining, but nerve-wracking, like watching a funambulist with an ear infection.

All of which reminded me of one of my favorite bits that s.z. wrote for the old site. So in honor of McClellan’s reflections on his tenure at the White House, here’s a little World o’ Crap flashback to February, 2004 (with slight updates):

Can This Marriage Be Saved? A One Act Play

[Scott, a White House Press Secretary, comes home from work unexpectedly to find his wife having sex with another man.]

Scott: Mary Lou! What is going on here? What are you doing naked, with my best friend Bob?

Mary Lou: Let me start by taking the second half of your question first. As to whether Bob is your “best friend,” we’ve heard numerous opinions, but this is not a controversy that your wife believes she should inject herself into at this point in the process, and therefore I would refer you to Bob, who is in a better position to make a determination on this subject.

Scott: I don’t care about him, I want to know why you’re having sex with another man?!

Mary Lou: Scott, marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. Bob is a man, and I’m a woman, and you weren’t home, so I thought you’d be okay with it.

Scott: I’m not okay with it! You broke your marriage vows!

MaryLou: Scott, honey, just calm down. You know that I’m focused on the issue of marriage and feel that marriage should be protected, because it is an enduring institution in this country. So, we’re in agreement, right? Now, what did you do with your paycheck — I need to pay some bikini wax bills.

Scott: But, but, you promised to forsake all others, but now I find you sleeping with another man…!

Mary Lou: I know there’s a lot of back-and-forthing, and finger-pointing, and blame-gaming going on, but the real issue is that our marriage ceremony — which, I would just point out, you fully supported at the time — legally entitled us to engage in marital relations, or “sex.” The right to sleep with a man is therefore inherent in my authority as your wife.

Scott: But — you can’t just decide on your own that it’s okay to sleep with someone else! What about me?

Mary Lou: Scott, rest assured that your wife fully recognizes that you are a co-equal branch of this marriage. But sex is not a popularity contest, and you can’t expect a group of people to participate in the decision-making about who I’m going to sleep with, especially in dangerous times like these, when swift and resolute action is required if we’re going to achieve our objectives before my husband gets home.

Scott: I am your husband! I am home!

Mary Lou: Scott, you can point fingers all you like, but I’m not going to play the blame game. There may be some people in this room who really believe that finger-pointing and blame-gaming are appropriate responses to this situation, but I would remind you that this marriage is facing very serious threats, and I for one am not going to go down that road to playing the blame game.

Scott: No! You’re playing Hide the Salami!

Mary Lou: Scott, as I’ve said before, I cannot comment on an on-going sex act. After my orgasm, there will be plenty of time to discuss this issue, but as long as the intercourse is on-going, I can’t discuss it. Now why don’t you just calm down, have a drink or something to pull yourself together, and then we can all deal with this like adults.

[Scott storms out of the room and mixes himself a Malibu Rum and Diet Coke. 10 minutes later, Scott returns to the bedroom to find Mary Lou and Bob at it again.]

Scott: Mary Lou! Bob! You — you gutter politicians! You trash trollers! Cheating on me in my own bed!

[Mary Lou sighs, rolls her eyes, and appears vexed.]

Mary Lou: This was addressed previously, Scott. I’m not going to continue to respond to something that was already dealt with. I think that, again, this goes to show that some are not interested in the facts of whether or not I am your wife, but are instead trying to invent issues for partisan political gain. The American people deserve better, and I’m focused on acting decisively to meet those challenges.

Scott: You can’t change the subject this way! You betrayed me! And with my best friend too! Why shouldn’t I get my gun and shoot you both right where you’re lying?

Mary Lou: At a time when we are confronting dangerous new threats, we have to focus on our highest priorities, which are combating terrorism and confronting the spread of weapons of mass destruction and sexually transmitted diseases. From very early on in my administration as your wife, I made it a high priority to confront the dangerous new threats we face in this day and age. Let’s have an honest discussion about the type of leadership people are providing to confront those threats. That’s what the American people deserve.

Scott: What the hell are you talking about? Speak English for just once, woman!

Mary Lou: I gave your gun away, Scott. No more gun. But I’m glad we were able to achieve a joint resolve to work together to strengthen this marriage, which is a sacred institution, and I look forward to four more years of marital happiness.

Scott: You bitch! Why should I stay married to you? You vowed to cleave only unto me, but you cleaved to Bob! Twice!

Mary Lou: There’s going to be plenty of time to talk about the choices we face and the statements people have made. Why don’t you take the dog for a walk, and when you get back, I will show you undeniable proof that I’ve been faithful to you.

Scott: How could you do that?

Mary Lou: Your wife certainly is someone who does what she says she is going to do and someone who means what she says. And I think that’s reflected in the actions she takes.

Scott: Well, okay.

[He leaves with the dog, and comes back an hour later. Mary Lou is now in bed with Scott's brother.]

Scott: You whore! Cheating on me with my own brother!

Mary Lou: You’re taking everything out of context. It is sad to see someone stoop to this level, to say anything or try to do anything for political gain. The American people deserve better.

Scott: Oh, just shut up, shut up! I thought you were going to show me proof that you had been faithful?

[MaryLou shows him a copy of her marriage certificate, and a calendar with some days checked off.]

Mary Lou: There. The certificate is proof that I am your lawful wife, and since marriage is an institution between one man and one woman, how could I be in this institution with anybody else? And those days I’ve checked on the calendar were days that I was having my period, and didn’t feel like sleeping with anybody. So, that proves that I have honorably fulfilled my duties, and am a good and faithful wife. Now, could you give us some privacy? Thanks.

I Pity the Fool | 15 Comments »

Is it a subdural hematoma? Is it his boyish enthusiasm for oddly named sandwiches? Is it an odor?

Well, whatever it is, Matt’s not letting the miasma of idiocy that surrounds him at all times like a Grand Banks fog deter him from asking the questions that were even too stupid for Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos:

What is it about Obama that Attracts Hamas, Communists, and Domestic Terrorists?

In the 1990s, it was often noted that a great many of Bill Clinton’s friends were either dead or in jail.

Yeah, the same thing was often noted in the 1980s about Nelson Mandela’s friends. That joke never gets old…

Similarly, Barack Obama seems to curry favor with some very questionable characters … Granted, in some cases Obama disavows them (he sort of did this with Rev. Wright’s comments).

Yeah, he kinda gave a speech or somethin’.

In other cases, he has not sought their endorsement (such as anti-semite Louis Farrakhan) –

…but they’re both black, so they gotta know each other.

…but ultimately, people have to wonder what it is about Obama that attracts the support of Hamas, Communists, and domestic terrorists to him ….

That’s a pretty diverse group of interests, so I’m going to guess that Obama is either a uniter, not a divider, or maybe it’s his Hai Karate.

This subject came up in last night’s debate when a question was asked about Bill Akers. Obama served on a board for an anti-poverty group with Bill Akers of the Weather Underground.

To be fair, Obama misheard the introductions and thought he was meeting Angus MacLise of the Velvet Underground.

But of course, he’s a changed man, right? Wrong: In 2001, he told the New York Times, “I don’t regret the bombings.” Last night, Obama responded to questions about this by saying,

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

… But, of course, they don’t really know each other that, well, right? Well, last February Obama’s Chief Strategist David Axelrod told Politico’s Ben Smith this:

“Bill Ayers lives in his neighborhood. Their kids attend the same school … They’re certainly friendly, they know each other, as anyone whose kids go to school together.” (Ben Smith, “Ax On Ayers,” The Politico’s “Ben Smith” Blog, www.politico.com, 2/26/08)

Well, I was going to support Obama, before Matt provided this incontrovertible evidence of the Senator’s chicanery: Obama says that Bill Akers lives in his neighborhood and he knows him, and Obama’s own Chief Strategist stabs him in the back by confirming his account! But for some reason, Obama doesn’t see fit to mention that their kids go to school together, and as everyone knows, PTA meetings are hotbeds of violent treason. I remember when I was in Junior High, my mom finally quit the Booster Club in disgust because she wanted to hold a raffle to raise money to buy new marching band uniforms, while all the other mothers only wanted to bomb the Phone Company and levitate the Pentagon.

Well, if domestic terrorists aren’t enough reason for you to raise a red flag about Obama, former Sandanista Rebel Leader Daniel Ortega praised Obama’s campaign as “revolutionary.”

Really? There’s an African-American with a serious chance of being elected to the Presidency of the United States, and Ortega considers that “revolutionary?” Hey, Mustache, you might wanna turn down the hyperbole.

But then, generations of TV pitchwomen said the same thing about laundry detergents with enzymes, and that stuff only made things whiter.

Also, during an interview, a top Hamas political adviser essentially endorsed Obama, saying: “

We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance…”

… So why do all these people like Obama? Is it that they think he’s amenable to their agenda? Or do they just see him as “green” and inexperienced and malleable?

The question is: Do Americans want someone who — at best – is obviously viewed as so naive and easily influenced running the show, really?

Personally, I’m more comfortable with them blogging about lunch:

My Day

So what’s up with me??

Well, I’ve been following all the news about last night’s Dem debate, as well as the Pope’s visit.

Oh yeah, I also spoke to a group of journalists/politicians from Sweden. That was pretty cool. Following that, I had lunch with Jim “The Show” Eltringham at Lawson’s deli. I had the sandwich called the “Young Republican” (chicken salad and bacon. yum).

I had a very good blog afternoon over at Townhall. Posted like 5 good posts. This gives me a feeling of accomplishment. One of the good things about blogging is that office work often lacks immediate rewards. Unlike someone who “builds” something (a chair, a house, etc.), a lot of time, you can work in an office for weeks without having anything to really “show” for it. But if you post a blog — well that’s one thing you did. (At least, that’s what I tell myself).

I’m looking forward to The Office tonight (did I mention I have an entire blog devoted to that show?).

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? I don’t know. But I do know that whoever the guardians of the democratic process are, they sure do like bacon.

I Pity the Fool | 11 Comments »

Janet M. LaRue, a former Concerned Women of America, host of various SCTV programs, and current Townhall pundit, wants you to take part in a shocking thought experiment that will change the way you think…Forever!

Janet M. LaRue (far right) in undated file photo.

Sen. Barack Obama is highly intelligent, likeable, articulate (no racism intended)

It just slipped out.

…dynamic, well-educated and witty. He is receiving virtually worshipful coverage from the news media.

Now imagine the Republican presidential front runner is a highly intelligent, likeable, articulate, dynamic, well-educated and witty conservative.

Okay, but I’ll need drugs. You holding?

He is also black and formerly liberal. His name is Clarence Thomas.

Never mind. I see someone apparently licked the whole blotter before I could get to it.

What would be missing from the picture?

Melting clocks?

The adoring mainstream media, for one. What would we find? The rank racist comments, cartoons, editorials, speeches, etc., reserved for black conservatives by liberals of all colors.

When will conservatives finally summon the courage to take on all the liberal champions of racism, whether they be white, black, cranberry blush, soft azalea, heather graphite, tropical aqua, spring coral, celery, or loden.

Obama and Thomas are about as far apart politically as it gets. If they were cities, you’d need satellite tracking to pinpoint both, and they wouldn’t be in Georgia.

I have no idea what this paragraph means, but I do know that wherever Lewis Carroll is right now, he’s really, really jealous.

But there are important similarities. Both were deserted by their fathers and were primarily reared by their grandparents. And both have written an autobiography.

No wonder they keep getting each other’s mail.

In his book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, he tells his boyhood search for identity and the rage he felt as a young black man…

You’d also need GPS technology to find any criticism of Obama’s “rage” or lashing out in the rave reviews of his book by the MSM…

Yes, Global Positioning Satellite technology is to today’s Formerly Concerned Woman what the words “space” and “atomic” where to yesteryear’s pulp science fiction writers: dimly grasped vectors for pizzazz!

Thomas also shares his transformation from liberal to conservative, which included intense interaction with Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and other conservatives, black and white. Thomas also makes his case against those who would confine black Americans to liberal orthodoxy, as he did at his contentious confirmation hearing before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee.

Remember kids, it was all about liberating African-Americans from the intellectual plantations of liberal orthodoxy, and not about inviting female subordinates to lunch hour screenings of Long Dong Silver videos in your office.

Won’t it be wonderful when racism declines to the point that a black conservative has an equal chance to achieve the American dream without experiencing a nightmare at the hands of “abusive monsters?”

You’ll note that in the long history of abusive monsters, from Godzilla to Cloverfield, it’s always the black conservatives who die first.

I Pity the Fool | 23 Comments »

 

Kevin McCullough has taken note of our humble burlesque on his blog, ThrobbingManHead Rebellion, and has a few stern words for those snickering ne’er do wells who have taken all the fabulousness out of Kevin’s shopping sprees:

The so precisely titled “World-O-Crap” yoyos believe they are slicing and dicing me today with wounds that are near fatal…

(fake stumble, backwards, forwards, clutching of my heart) “No… how could it be…”

Complete with intimations of my lack of intelligence, closeted sexuality (again – geesh these people are so predictable, my gosh they have to be the least original people that God ever made…) and let’s see… and… oh yes – these perves think it completely acceptable to keep “peeping tom laws” from coming into existence. Oh and make sure you stay tuned at the end of the post to read the comments and see for yourself the ”brain trust” that reads a blog titled “World-O-Crap.”

World-O-Crap indeed…

Just for the record: We never opposed Peeping Tom laws per se, or in Kevin’s more elegant phrase, “think it completely acceptable to keep ‘peeping tom laws’ from coming into existence.”   We just believe it’s worth a few minutes out of the day to mock a blue-nosed, pearl-clutching local politician and his overbroad, unenforceable, and probably unconstitutional response to a situation that could be more efficiently and entertainingly remedied (as Julia noted in comments) by a skirt-clad woman with an insecure grip on her coffee cup.

In fact, while I have no objection to people saying flamboyantly stupid things behind closed doors, I must take issue with people like Kevin who believe there’s nothing wrong with engaging in this sort of behavior on the public internets.  And I say this not from a position of moral superiority, but as one who has himself succumbed to the temptation to look at Kevin’s oeuvre in a more than casual or cursory manner, for the purpose of entertainment, and for the purpose of degrading or abusing the person being read.

Therefore, I would suggest that Peter Vallone, Jr. pick up his wide ruled paper and his Sharpie and get to lawgivin’.

By the way, it should also be noted that Kevin has set a record here by making the venerable ”aptly named world o’ crap“ joke at least three times in a single post.  Something I don’t think anyone has ever bothered to do before.  Tres originale.

I Pity the Fool | 22 Comments »

From today’s LA Times: 

“I have a fresh idea that no one has ever suggested in such detail or with such care before:  Let’s have some kind of literacy test at the polling place to keep undesirables from voting!”

Somewhat longer Jonah:

Maybe the emphasis on getting more people to vote has dumbed-down our democracy by pushing participation onto people uninterested in such things. Maybe our society would be healthier if politicians aimed higher than the lowest common denominator. Maybe the opinions of people who don’t know the first thing about how our system works aren’t the folks who should be driving our politics, just as people who don’t know how to drive shouldn’t have a driver’s license.

Instead of making it easier to vote, maybe we should be making it harder. Why not test people about the basic functions of government? Immigrants have to pass a test to vote; why not all citizens?

“I’m also working on an exciting idea for something I’m calling ‘the Poll Tax.’  It’s just a work in progress, but it’s a very serious, thoughtful idea that no one’s ever had before, and I really think it’s got the potential to revolutionize democracy in America.

What?  No, I wasn’t planning on having any American history questions in the voter test – why do you ask?”

UPDATE:  Mary is a public school teacher, so I asked what she thought of this column.  Before her head exploded, this is roughly what she had to say:

So, Jonah thinks people should pass a civics test in order to vote.

All I could think was, “Gee! Wouldn’t it be great if there was a way to educate every citizen of our country so that they would could pass such a test, no matter their income?” Then I remembered that in the past we did educate our citizens on that very subject; it was called Social Studies and it’s one of the most recent victims of the asinine No Child Left Behind act.

You see, in order to prove proficiency under that act, a school must pass only a reading and math test.  No other subject is tested.  And schools are in such a panic to make sure their students pass their standardized tests, subjects like Science and Social Studies have been pushed out of the classroom.  So if Jonah thinks the current adult population is ignorant of (and therefore disinterested in) politics, wait until the kids now in school come of age.  They’ll be so woefully uninformed about their rights and obligations as citizens, they might actually mistake Jonah’s mash note to Jim Crow for a rational alternative to using the schools and media to inform Americans about issues of public importance.

If you didn’t know better, you’d almost think the GOP wants a populace that’s ignorant about the basics of government, and the NCLB delivers exactly that.

I Pity the Fool | 23 Comments »

William Kristol crept onto the Op-Ed pages of the Washington Post on Sunday and did the Numa Numa Dance in his Fruit of the Looms for the benefit of the Beltway’s tastemakers and trendsetters:

I suppose I’ll merely expose myself to harmless ridicule if I make the following assertion: George W. Bush‘s presidency will probably be a successful one.

 ”Further, I suppose I’ll be subjected to a certain degree of incredulous snickering if I pull down my pants in front of the cheerleaders and assert that I am equipped with a thick, corrugated, tubetacular man-handle that sways gently from knee to knee like the pendulum of a grandfather clock.”

Let’s step back from the unnecessary mistakes and the self-inflicted wounds that have characterized the Bush administration.

“Sure, George-Bob wore a loose, filmy negligee when he was drivin’ the thresher, and then when we pried him and his leg outta there, he put on a 12-foot long Isadora Duncan scarf and started runnin’ the wood-chipper, but I don’t think it’s fair to bring that stuff up when we consider his qualifications to operate power machinery.”

 Let’s look at the broad forest rather than the often unlovely trees. What do we see? First, no second terrorist attack on U.S. soil — not something we could have taken for granted.

Well, unless you count the weaponized anthrax that killed five Americans, hospitalized 17 others, caused the evacuation of Federal buildings and the virtual paralysis of the Postal Service.  But that mostly affected journalists, Democrats, and civil servants so it doesn’t really count.

 Second, a strong economy — also something that wasn’t inevitable.

Unless you were a major contributor to the Bush campaign or the Republican party, then you were pretty much guaranteed the chance to go on a madcap, My Man Godfrey-like scavanger hunt through the U.S. treasury.  And for the record, Bill, while the words “Bush Boom” may go down in history, I doubt it’ll be as a synonym for increased disposable income.

And third, and most important, a war in Iraq that has been very difficult, but where — despite some confusion engendered by an almost meaningless “benchmark” report last week — we now seem to be on course to a successful outcome.

And how do we measure success?  Well, not by the benchmarks the president agreed to use as a metric, because neither we nor the Iraqis met any of those benchmarks, or even made any progress at all, and it’s impossible to measure nothing!  So HA!  Get yourself out of that logical cleft-stick, defeatocrats!

The economy first: After the bursting of the dot-com bubble, followed by the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, we’ve had more than five years of steady growth, low unemployment and a stock market recovery. Did this just happen? No. Bush pushed through the tax cuts of 2001 and especially 2003 by arguing that they would produce growth. His opponents predicted dire consequences. But the president was overwhelmingly right. Even the budget deficit, the most universally criticized consequence of the tax cuts, is coming down and is lower than it was when the 2003 supply-side tax cuts were passed.

“Also, advanced kerning analysis has proved that the Cottingley Fairies were real!”

Elsie and Frances were proved overwhelmingly right.

Bush has also (on the whole) resisted domestic protectionist pressures (remember the Democratic presidential candidates in 2004 complaining about outsourcing?)

“Remember when we actually thought that shipping jobs overseas might actually be a bad thing?  Before we realized how helpful it was at fighting wage growth and efforts to unionize?  Kinda makes you giggle now.  It’s like when our dads all thought flouridation of the water would lead to widespread erectile dysfunction and communism in their children.  Well, I don’t know about you, but I’m not a communist.”

Meanwhile, 2005-06 saw the confirmation of two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Your judgment of these two appointments will depend on your general view of the courts and the Constitution. But even if you’re a judicial progressive, you have to admit that Roberts and Alito are impressive judges (well, you don’t have to admit it — but deep down, you know it).

“Your lips say no, but your eyes say yes.”

What about terrorism? Apart from Iraq, there has been less of it, here and abroad, than many experts predicted on Sept. 12, 2001.

Sure, it’s has increased every year of the Bush presidency, but I’m sure that on Sept. 12, 2001, certain experts panicked and predicted that by 2007 terrorism would become the dominant form of social interaction among American youth, with hijackings and suicide bombings replacing text messaging and speed dating.

So Bush and Vice President Cheney probably are doing some important things right.

Like eating Quaker Oats oatmeal for breakfast.  That’s the right thing to do.

The war in Afghanistan has gone reasonably well.

Exactly!  Say you’re a football team, and you really kicked ass in the first half, racking up a comfortable lead while your defense stopped the opposition cold.  There’s no real reason to return for the second half, is there?  I mean, by that point, what have you got left to prove?  You made your point, it’s time to move on to the next game.  It’s not like the referees can decide you’ve forfeited, or anything.

 

Western Pakistan, where President Pervez Musharraf‘s deals with the Taliban are apparently creating something like havens for terrorists, is an increasing problem. That’s why our intelligence agencies are worried about a resurgent al-Qaeda — because al-Qaeda may once again have a place where it can plan, organize and train. These Waziristan havens may well have to be dealt with in the near future. I assume Bush will deal with them, using some combination of air strikes and special operations. 

Yes, with our ally Musharraf making deals that allow al-Qaeda to regroup in Waziristan, I assume that Bush will do something about this at sometime in the future and this time not screw it up or get bored and wander off to play with the dog, because the U.S. launching attacks on Pakistani soil would give the politically shaky Musharraf a huge boost of popularity with his own constituents, who are totally not hung up on pride or national sovereignty or any of that shit.

But wait, wait, wait: What about Iraq? It’s Iraq, stupid — you (and 65 percent of your fellow Americans) say — that makes Bush an unsuccessful president.  Not necessarily. First of all, we would have to compare the situation in Iraq now, with all its difficulties and all the administration’s mistakes, with what it would be if we hadn’t gone in. Saddam Hussein would be alive and in power and, I dare say, victorious…

 

 

Over what?  Hemorroids?  Manchester United?  His craving for macaroons?

…with the United States (and the United Nations) by now having backed off sanctions and the no-fly zone.

Really?  Clinton managed to keep the sanctions going and the no-fly zone in place, all Bush had to do was maintain the status quo.  So is Bill implying that Bush is such a consummate bumbler that he can’t even successfully do nothing?

He might well have restarted his nuclear program, and his connections with al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups would be intact or revived and even strengthened.

Okay, he didn’t have any connections with al-Qaeda, but if we hadn’t invaded Iraq and killed him, he would have had lots of free time on his hands and maybe his wife would have nagged him enough that he finally would have gotten around to those projects he’d been putting off, like reseeding the lawn, and painting the kitchen cabinets, and building an atom bomb.

Still, that’s speculative, and the losses and costs of the war are real. Bush is a war president, and war presidents are judged by whether they win or lose their war.

Or just suddenly start a war because Daddy’s the one who got to sleep in Mommy’s bed every night.

So to be a successful president, Bush has to win in Iraq.

Which kinda brings us back to why the cheerleaders are laughing at your penis, Bill.

Which I now think we can. Indeed, I think we will

I’ll go even farther, I think we have.  And we should pack up and get home tout suite before we miss the party and walk in to find the joint empty except for some 4-F wolf in a zoot suit knocking back the last of the Blatz and pitching woo at our girl.

In late 2006, I didn’t think we would win, as Bush stuck with the failed Rumsfeld-Abizaid-Casey strategy of “standing down” as the Iraqis were able to “stand up,” based on the mistaken theory that if we had a “small footprint” in Iraq, we’d be more successful.

“But I continued lying on national TV about how it was gonna work anyway.”

We are routing al-Qaeda in Iraq,

Principally by declaring that anybody we shoot –Sunni, Shiite, small child — is a member of al-Qaeda in Iraq.  Neat, huh?  It’s not as easy to pull off in friendly fire cases, but we’re working on that.

…we are beginning to curb the Iranian-backed sectarian Shiite militias

Okay, we’re not, but the good news is they’re really not all that important, since a lot of the guys who are killing American troops are being bused in from our good friend Saudi Arabia.

…and we are increasingly able to protect more of the Iraqi population

…from the hazards of overcrowding.  It’s sort of like being an American bison in 1890.  Where once you were packed horn to horn as you thundered across the plain, now you can really stretch out and enjoy the elbow room.

If we sustain the surge for a year and continue to train Iraqi troops effectively, we can probably begin to draw down in mid- to late 2008.

“By which I mean, by then the country will have elected some Democrat who ran on a promise to withdraw from Iraq, so the important thing is to keep the war going full blast right up until 11:59 AM on January 20, 2009.  After which, I’ll just have to lock myself in the bathroom and do what I can with my G.I. Joe’s kung fu grip.”

Bush has the good fortune of having finally found his Ulysses S. Grant, or his Creighton Abrams, in Gen. David H. Petraeus.

Just curious, but when did this guy Petraeus becoming the second coming of Cincinnatus?

Following through to secure the victory in Iraq and to extend its benefits to neighboring countries will be the task of the next president. And that brings us to Bush’s final test.  The truly successful American presidents tend to find vindication in, and guarantee an extension of their policies through, the election of a successor from their own party. Can Bush hand the presidency off to a Republican who will (broadly) continue along the path of his post-9/11 foreign policy, nominate judges who solidify a Roberts-Alito court, make his tax cuts permanent and the like?

Sure.

It may sound counterintuitive, but has Bill ever been wrong before?  Not to hear him tell it, and since he’s never admitted to being wrong (and who but a sociopath would never admit to ever being wrong?)  it must be true.

What it comes down to is this: If Petraeus succeeds in Iraq, and a Republican wins in 2008, Bush will be viewed as a successful president.

I like the odds. 

Yeah, okay.  But FYI, Bill Bennett is betting that you won’t cover the spread.

 

 

I Pity the Fool | 35 Comments »

Deputy Clementine Johnson of the Reno Sheriff’s Department offers Paris Hilton many useful tips on surviving the joint.

I Pity the Fool | 6 Comments »