Instapun*** Archive Listing

Archive Listing
October 5, 2012 - September 28, 2012

Friday, October 05, 2012

Last Thoughts before
Election Day

BONA FIDES. I don't know who will win. I think Romney will, but part of that thought is hope, because I continue to believe in the common sense of the American people. If you don't believe in that sense, why would you care? Why I've continually tweaked the determined pessimists. Their position is suspiciously akin to the liberals who think they know better what ordinary people need. If the pessimists are right and the majority is so dumb as to reelect this utter disaster of a president, then it will be time for new formulations. Until then, pessimism seems a lot like vanity: "I know what no one else does, and it breaks my heart that you're all so stupid. And doomed. And pathetic."

The chief spokesman for the blackest perspective among commenters has been Dirty Rotten Varmint, who lashed out a post ago thus:

Wait - because I am REALISTIC about Obama's chances of winning, which are a salient THREAT: you're accusing me of WANTING him to win?

Fuck you.

As a "pessimist" who is simply being realistic and examining factual evidence, who has consistently since 2008 expressed my deep distrust and dislike of Obama, I expect an apology, you asshole.

I'm disheartened by the fantasy-laden, wishful-thinking, anti-factual turn taken by this blog. RL, you have turned into a discredited, disreputable, DISHONEST hack. You ought to be ashamed of yourself, and many of the commenters here shamefully encourage you.

I'll come back after the election is over when perhaps you can rejoin the real world and engage in cogent, rational conversation.

I responded thus:


You want an apology? Sure. I apologize if I have misinterpreted the core of your pessimism. At some level I know you want Romney to win. At another level I think you are heavily invested in your dark view of our future.

For example, in the scorching litany of truths you recited in a recent comment, you repeated your belief that debates never change anything. This year the first debate DID change things. Romney immediately began moving toward a lead in the polls. Or had you stopped paying attention by then? Or does it just not fit into your received wisdom?

I'm not the only one feeling optimistic. Such serious political experts as Michael Barone and Jay Cost believe Romney may very well win. Are they hacks too?

I think you'd rather be right about your nightmare vision than glad of a Romney victory. You tell me I'm wrong about that. If I am, I'm sorry.

Which is the truth. But on this last day before the moment of truth, I'd add a thought or two. Polls are not facts. They are statistical arguments dressed up as facts. There are legitimate reasons for questioning them, especially when so many of the sponsoring organizations are outgrowths of political or media organizations. Yes, they might be right. But they are not necessarily right and they are certainly not facts. Accepting them at face value conforms to no definition of "realism" I know of.

Furthermore, the Instapunk blog is not about you. It's about what I care about, in this case, the United States of America, which is in serious danger from a combination of institutions hijacked by lefties and pouters on the right who sit at home rather than vote because somebody somewhere has offended them. If you're a sitter, using your own words, Fuck You.

I'm giving you a pass on the "hack" remark. You're welcome back anytime. But just a reminder. A hack is usually compensated for his advocacy. I am not. I write what I think. Period. It's called freedom.


Lake found a New York Times critical path argument that daunted him.  Obama has hundreds of ways to win in the electoral college, and Romney has less than a hundred. Lake wonders if there's any flaw in the logic. Yes. This argument has been baked in the cake for decades. Democrats have a few big states like California and New York that give them a huge head start on the Electoral College. Republicans always have to win many more states to win a presidential election. Which means Democrats can hit the magic number by picking off individual states. Hence, many more ways to win. But not all ways to win are equal. Do Republicans win presidential elections despite the apparent "ways to win" odds against them? Yes. Is Ohio usually involved in the Republican winning formula? Yes. But the truth of history is that Republicans win Ohio when they win the election, not that Republicans win elections only because they win Ohio. The Buckeye State is 19 electoral votes. That's all. Of the 270 needed for victory, 19 is a shade above 5 percent. Why do Republicans need Ohio? Because Ohio is only half part of the midwest union monolith. Apart from Indiana, Democrat union influence has been delivering states like Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa to Democrats. Pennsylvania, which is very like Ohio except for Philadelphia, is the evil twin of Ohio, a reliable Democratic checkbox. But western Pennsylvania all the way to Philly is pretty much the same as Ohio excepting Cleveland and Cuyahoga County. If Ohio amputated Cleveland and Pennsylvania amputated Philadelphia and the remainder of these two states joined, Democrats would never win the presidency.  Accidents of Electoral College geography.

But there's nothing I will say to alleviate Lake's fears about Ohio. Right now, everyone gets into the mindset he needs to withstand the suspense. For DRV it's rage. For Lake it's guarded pessimism. He's living in Connecticut. Who can fault him?


I'm going to cite age again. Which I'm well aware may be as much delusion as wisdom.  Honestly. I know that. But I remember what most of you do not. 1980. So many things are similar in terms of feel, anecdote, and news. The polls had Carter ahead of Reagan to the very end. And Reagan the candidate was in some ways even less prepossessing than Romney, because even his admirers were concerned he was too old, had missed his window. He looked old, he sounded like a voice from the past. His sheer ebullience appeared an anachronism. The press had been drumming into us for years that the presidency was no longer a doable job -- they were touting a "New Normal" in which America would have to settle for less. It's true that not even the press liked Carter, but they hated Reagan far more than they despised the micro-manager peanut farmer. Reagan's "There you go again" riposte in the one debate was reported as a folksy anachronism, not a deathblow to Carter. But there was also a lingering mideast issue about which Reagan was curiously mum and the country was disturbed: the Iran Hostage Crisis.

Why am I thinking of all this now? Carter was still smarting from the helicopter crash that doomed his hostage rescue plan, badly planned and ill supported. His policy of negotiation regardless, even to the dismissal of our friends in favor of our enemies, made him look weak. His economic record was atrocious. High unemployment, higher inflation, and a response that seemed to blame Americans rather than his own policies for what was wrong.

But that's not all. In unexpected ways, Romney is reminding me of Reagan, and Obama is reminding me of Carter. In the political cartoons, Carter kept getting smaller, until he was a kind of raisin sitting on top of issues he couldn't control. In the same way, Obama keeps getting smaller. He has no second term agenda. He has only a duffel bag full of nasty. Everything about him is permanent -- his sneer, his certainty, his sense of superiority, his sense of entitlement to the perks of office, his determination to rule around the legislative branch like an omniscient polymath. In the same way, Carter managed the schedule of the White House tennis court. Only Carter did it himself. Obama has "peeps" to do it for him. Romney on the other hand is at least physically Reaganesque. He has great hair. He is tall, obviously handsome, and somehow impervious to slime. He's not as eloquent as Reagan. But he might be a permutation of Reagan. The man on the white horse who doesn't know there's even a horse.

In recent days, Romney has equaled Obama's likeability rating, after months and months of negative ads from the Obama campaign. All that slander, swept away in a single debate.

What I remember. Three things.

1. Reagan had a more difficult wife than Romney. Ann Romney will not shut down New York City fto attend an off-Broadway play, spend millions on state dinners, or endlessly redecorate the White House. We'll prefer to protect and cherish her instead.

2. Romney has a much better Harvard education than Obama, a law degree plus a business degree. The fact that he can listen to others where Obama cannot is a proof of the difference between the executive and the community organizer. One listens. The other dictates terms.

3. Yeah. There was that afternoon of Tuesday, November, 1980. The polls closed. The networks were ready to polish off Ronald Regan once and forever. Then the returns started coming in. You cannot know what it felt like to see the major networks dying on the air as the full impact of the catastrophe hit them. One of the great moments of my life. I can remember the room, the TV, the faces, the horror on their faces, and the joy I felt at the time. Landslide for Reagan. To me, this election feels like that one.

It can happen. The polls can be wrong. Not saying they are or will be. But they can be. But if, like me, you distrust the polls, here's what you look to:

-- Nobody's reporting Obama signs. Lots of people are reporting Romney signs. What are you seeing?

-- Romney and Ryan are consistently outdrawing Obama and Biden throughout the battleground midwest, frequently 10 to 1.

-- The monstrous bias of the MSM raises legitimate questions about all polls because polls rather than issues have become headline news stories.

-- 2012 isn't like 2008 in media terms. There;'s not just an incremental change but an order of magnitude change. Corruption has run so apace that the MSM is like nothing so much as helicopter parents protecting their incompetent child from accountability for anything and everything. The list of scandals is endless. All we get is happy pats on the back from newspapers, network news, and cable apologists. Which raises even more questions about the polls. Are they trophies for showing up, a la soccer kids who don the uniform but can't kick the ball into the goal?

-- The math for Obama just doesn't add up. Not anywhere. You can't lose most of the independents and suffer declines in enthusiasm among every single one of your constituencies and still think you're going to keep from losing the 3 1/2 percent of the vote that defeated McCain last time. Worse, you can't cite win the election by confabulating  polls that show you with more energetic turnout than you had in 2008. It doesn't pass the laugh test. For one, the kids are just hooking up and doing meth, not, uh, voting. Sad for Obama. Disaster for the nation.

Math. Which includes statistics. Any of you know that only 9 percent of those contacted by polling organizations anymore agree to be polled? Way down from previous years. Imagine all the hangups. Anyone doubt that all polling organizations are struggling with how to weight land lines versus cell phones? Who's more likely to answer, and what does it say about the whole population? Anyone know that party identity listed in polls is not determined by registration or history but who answers the phone? Lots of current polls are assuming Democrat party identities beyond levels that secured Obama's victory in 2008.

Polling is politics and influence, not science.

My common answer to DRV and Lake.

Standard disclaimer. Obama could still win. Standard disclaimer. If he does, I partially blame everyone who was too superior to participate in the vote.


Yeah. Girls. They care about is condoms and abortions. And bubbles.

Her name was Camille Paglia, yes, a lefty icon. Here's something she said:

What in the world has happened to the Democratic Party? Its passivity towards this awful takeover of our lives by a know-it-all government, as shown by the way Obama has governed by constantly going around Congress — appointing czars and one new layer of bureaucracy after another. And hardly a peep of protest from liberals. It’s like the movie of H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine” -- Democrats have turned into the Eloi; they’re like sheep. They hear a signal, and it’s like pre-programmed spin in their heads — they just trot like sheep in one direction. I am voting Green in protest against the systemic corruption of my party.

Who's she talking about specifically? Was that a typo? No. Obama.

I was very excited about him. I thought he was a moderate. I thought that his election would promote racial healing in the country.

It would be a tremendous transformation of attitudes. And instead: one thing after another. Not least: I consider him, now, one of the most racially divisive and polarizing figures ever. I think it's going to take years to undo the damage to relationships between the races.

Standard Disclaimer. My original plan was to show you all how to avoid confronting the news for 36 hours. Go ahead. Grapple with the news. Two days from now we'll have a country or we won't. DRV can continue demanding an apology, and I will give just as much of a fuck about that as I do now about that, win or lose.

On the other hand... thank you Lady Barbara. It's always a privilege to get an invitation from a lady. Friends of my grandmother were interned in Japan during WWII. They used the same coffee grounds for a week or two. I suspect the china made all the difference. Something few understand anymore. I'd love to serve you from my mother's Spode.

Thursday, October 04, 2012

Next up:
Ryan vs. Biden

Instant replay? Or prediction about next Thursday?
See, I'm guessing Biden will try to plagiarize Lloyd
Bentsen's 1984 putdown of Dan Quayle. Won't work.

CHECK THE CHAMP'S HIGHLIGHTS REEL. The next Romney-Obama debate will be a townhall with undecideds selected by Gallup. You can count on a couple of things. There will be gotcha questions aimed at Romney, and Obama will be far more aggressive against Romney. The outcome can't be taken for granted. Still, there will be no teleprompter and when Obama gets aggressive, he also has a way of looking and sounding mean. Plus, Romney has been a CEO and is therefore experienced in shareholder meetings where tough questions are asked. Obama not so much with his cherry-picked audiences. Chances are, after the Ryan-Biden debate, the Obama-Biden ticket will already be 0 for 2.

Worse, ratings for debates tend to decline after the first one. Obama needs more than a draw in Debate 2, and he can no longer count on a victory in the final foreign policy debate. The Benghazi mess is a mess indeed.

As I said before, be patient. Wait. It's not over till it's over. But something has happened to the myth of Obama inevitability.

Yeah, it hurts to get busted in the gut when you haven't trained for years.

Cross your fingers. Rocky didn't win that fight. And we still have to win this one.

P.S. My wife thinks I should take a bow for this remark from the previous post: "Nobody knows what voters are looking for in the Romney vs. Obama event. Not you, not me. Nobody. Attacks and deft lines? Policy specifics? A new Reagan? Maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe they're looking for Obama's Mussolini jaw, his stutters, his constant droning reliance on the pronouns "I" and "me." Maybe Romney's blandness and unwillingness to get personal are exactly what an electorate tired of hateful invective wants."

Yeah, the debate was a perfect storm of all those things. But I didn't guess that would happen. Didn't.

Wednesday, October 03, 2012


Don't Panic.

Panic results in monster screw-ups. Be patient. Wait. Keep breathing.

. Watch the debate or don't. Watch the pundits afterwards or don't. Stay up for the flash polls or don't. Nothing that happens tonight can be understood tonight. And it probably won't be understood for days or weeks.

Nobody knows what voters are looking for in the Romney vs. Obama event. Not you, not me. Nobody. Attacks and deft lines? Policy specifics? A new Reagan? Maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe they're looking for Obama's Mussolini jaw, his stutters, his constant droning reliance on the pronouns "I" and "me." Maybe Romney's blandness and unwillingness to get personal are exactly what an electorate tired of hateful invective wants. Maybe they've already made up their minds and are just lying low, not answering pollsters' calls and waiting for Election Day to send their message. Yes, the debates may be critical, but exactly how...? Impossible to tell.

How I've been preparing. Not listening to conservative talk radio. Not watching Fox News. Emptying my own head of all expectations, preferred strategies, and wishful thinking.

The American people either get the calamitous circumstance they find themselves in or they don't. What will be will be.

From The Man Who Knew Too Much. Take it from a prime offender...

From here on in, we're in the lap of the gods. Not to offend the religious right in any way. It's a figure of speech. Calm down. Keep breathing.

Tuesday, October 02, 2012

The best film you'll see
about race in America

"No Crossover:" It's on-demand at Comcast.

BORROWED PROVENANCE. Is this a timeout from the election? Maybe. Maybe not. We'll see.

Regardless, it's an absolutely brilliant piece of work. Allen Iverson is the most interesting of all 1990s-to-present NBA superstars, including Michael Jordan. Why? Because he was probably as talented as Jordan, but much smaller -- except in the realm of personality, where he represented a giant mystery no fan or friend or foe has ever been able to penetrate. In the nation's (possibly) toughest sports town, Philadelphia, the fans soooo wanted to love him but had to endure such a seesaw battle between love returned and love rebuffed that they are still exhausted by his legacy. They called him "AI," which I always found hilarious, because there was never anything artificial about Iverson's intelligence. It was natural, spontaneous, impossible to debug as a program, and continuously mesmerizing in a way no computer could hope to emulate. At rest and at peace, he had the eyes of a doe, and despite his being such a star he made people want to protect him the way they would an unruly child. Yet he also became the trailblazing poster child for hip hop style and attitude. In this context he was dubbed "The Answer."

Yeah, he made Jordan look clumsy more than once.

But what is "The Question?" How about, who the hell is and was Allen Iverson? But this is only one of the questions filmmaker Steve James (Hoop Dreams) set out to answer in "No Crossover: The Trial of Allen Iverson."

Steve James is from Allen Iverson's hometown, Hampton, Virginia. This is also the town where the controversy that has always surrounded Iverson began. There was a brawl at a bowling alley. Iverson, already a nationally famous high school football and basketball star, was arrested for hitting a woman with a chair in a racially charged incident in a racially charged southern jurisdiction. That's what this film is about.

It's said, and repeated by multiple interviewees in the film, that we can't talk about race in America. But James somehow manages to do it. Why you absolutely have to see it. If you made the plot up, it would be a yawn penned by dutifully liberal scriptwriters who would choose a villain and expose him in the end so justice could be served or thwarted according to prevailing movie conventions.

That's not what we have here. Because the center of the drama is a character so complex that nobody, black or white, is sure to this day what happened or why. Was there racism? Yes. Institutional racism? Yes. Was there a distortion created by a brilliantly talented athlete on whom the hopes of a poor community were pinned? Yes. Was there legitimate reason to try and punish a 17-year-old boy for a malevolent act? Yes. Was there media distortion and big media piling on? Yes. Were black people unanimous in support of a black youth being taken down by The Man? No. Were all white people engaged in a racist exercise in lynching? No. Did the whole case somehow stink to high heaven? Yes. Did the outcome prove that race relations can never be improved and that white southerners are always unfair and bigoted? No. Did it prove that black activists are always of one mind about what, why, and how they do their thing in the attempt to redress injustice? No. Were politics and political correctness responsible for an artificial "fix" that papered over the real problems? No.

At the end we're left with ambiguities, few answers, and virtually no animus toward anyone involved. It was a mess. The community dealt with it as best it could, and there are still wounds, not all of them racial. How could this be? The premise seems so stereotyped, so, well, open and shut. There are two answers. First, there's the startling honesty and personal participation of the filmmaker, who interviewed his own mother, who said she thought Iverson needed to be punished and her admission that her (dead) husband saw things differently. Steve James allowed himself to be interviewed on camera and spoke honestly about the racial context in his hometown at the time, acknowledging that he accepted a status quo most people would think expired with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Second and much more significant is the character of Allen Iverson himself. He is absolutely not a symbol but an individual of such striking contradictions that one is left with the conviction that he is two completely different people. One is endearing, tender, even sweet, oddly humble and by no means a racist. One is selfish, grandiose, careless, oblivious, dark, manipulative, sometimes violent, and ambitious to the extreme.

The film does a lot to show how both personas were created. The doe eyes are not a fraud. The perpetual truant and sports star also grew up with no father and an absentee mother, getting his older sister ready for school in a house with such shocking plumbing problems that they wore rubber boots because they were traipsing around in human sewage. Various latter-day clips show how readily the thug can be reduced to tears by others' gratitude or appreciation. Yet the people of his hometown who fought for his release from a grotesque prison sentence on a charge designed to prevent Jim Crow lynchings are still waiting for a thank you. The rest of the world has seen the selfish hip hop side aplenty.

The sum? People all trying to do their best as they saw by their lights good should be. White people are not sure how they feel all these years later. But neither are black people. With regard to Iverson, we are left with an interview he gave Stephen A. Smith in which AI said every time he's been in jail, all four times, he's deserved it. And he said the reasons are not racial, but personal. At times, he suggested, God has said, "Go through this." And he accepts that direction in his life. But there's a sense of sadness too. He's bankrupt now, with few prospects of a second life. He went to Georgetown, a great university, yet he still speaks the street language of his hometown, which btw is the first place African slaves were unloaded in America. Is life ever poetry? Unfortunately, yes. Maybe that's "The Answer" to the question no one asked.

So. Connection to the election? Not really. Unless it's this. Obama sometimes seems like two people too. You know. The Harvard Law know-it-all. And the southern preacher Sunday sermonizer. But he's not really two people, is he? Unless both of them are cold, calculating, and even more thin-skinned than Allen Iverson.

Truth is, Obama's upbringing, his life experience, his identity, have absolutely nothing to do with that of the brilliantly talented and permanently tortured Allen Iverson. Then again, Allen Iverson is an African-American. Which Obama absolutely and definitively isn't.

Monday, October 01, 2012

Brizoni's Destiny

Sometimes you have to fly right into the annihilation of the sun...

. Yeah, we might lose. Which puts everyone who knows better on a path they'd rather not have to take. Privation, persecution, maybe even prosecution and the end of everything we know. But what have we all been here for? Perhaps for nothing more or admirably higher than prepping Brizoni for the real fight to come. After those of us who remember are dead and gone. That's worthwhile. There are times when the best of us have to go through the very worst to become revitalized. Brizoni has all my faith.

Not that Eli is as tall, handsome or brilliant as Brizoni. The Captain
by the way would be our own Joe.
Brave and rockheaded as they come.
But note whose head is up and whose is down when the lights go out.

We all die. The world is left to those who will fight for it.

Friday, September 28, 2012

The simple case against Obama

He isn't all that smart, folks. But don't tell that to the MSM or Hollywood...

...AND btw... William H. Macy is surely old enough to
  remember back to JFK, who did have an air of grace.
Meaning, it wasn't always about him. (No teleprompter.)

TOLD YOU AT THE START. Conservatives and their brethren piss and moan that it's not enough for Romney to be NOT OBAMA. Poppycock. There's a very simple case to be made against Obama that I urge you all to press on your liberal friends. Reasons no one should vote to reelect Obama.

1. The man and his surrogates lie continuously about almost everything. He promised to cut the deficit. He doubled it. He promised that ObamaCare wouldn't raise health insurance premiums or force people to give up insurance plans they liked. Premiums have gone up and people are already losing their employee health insurance plans. He said he would end the partisan bickering that paralyzes Washington. It's never been more vitriolic and poisonous, and he's the one leading the way. This past week, his administration has also been shown to be deliberately lying about the attack that slew a U.S. ambassador in Libya. It wasn't about a video. It was about al qaeda launching a commemorative 9/11 attack on the 11th anniversary of the WTC strike. Are we fools? The press may be covering for him, but even liberals should be able to detect that their candidate has a fast and loose relationship with the truth that is almost unparalleled in U.S. history. If the press is ever to be functional again, we need a change.

2. Obama is at most a part-time president. He was elected as a celebrity, and a celebrity is what he would prefer to be. He doesn't have time to meet with members of congress, not even his own Democratic leaders in the house and senate. What he has time for is golf, fundraisers, sports teams at the White House, The View, Beyonce and Jay-Z, but none for intelligence briefings or meetings with foreign leaders at the U.N. Shouldn't this make everyone squeamish? And while he routinely ducks press conferences and appears on the ass-kissing Letterman program instead, he still commits a gaffe by failing to remember the size of the federal debt. Ask yourself: fon't you want the man in the Oval Office to be working his butt off for us? There isn't anybody who can say Obama's done that.

3. The president doesn't like the people he was elected to serve, namely, Americans. Maybe they find him likeable, for no reason I can detect, but unless you're a demographic minority he can exploit at the polls, he has no time for you. There's little sign that he visits wounded troops. After throwing his Liberation Theology preacher under the bus in 2008, he seems to have given up going to church altogether. There's no indication that he regards women as anything more than horny babymaking machines who need to be strapped into a federal barn like milk cows. He doesn't bother to learn the names of the cities he visits. He panders to Hispanics but can't even name their big holiday. He apologizes and bows to our enemies, defends muslims intrepidly and wishes them a happy Ramadan every year, and either slights or ignores our foreign allies and the working people (entrepreneurs) of this country, who don't belong to unions and are, btw, responsible for creating at least half the jobs in the private economy. He doesn't even think they matter. Liberal or otherwise, tell that to your plumber, electrician, roofer, mechanic, tire dealer, candle shop, dollar store, diner, gas station, hardware store, and garden center. You know. None of them has an ass like Beyonce or a dunk like LeBron. Who's the elitist here? And who wants to be in that category? Liberals...???

4. He's done a crappy job by any measure. If you're a good Democrat, a good liberal, the best thing you can do for yourself is to put the onus on Republicans to fix the gigantic economic and international mess we're in. The Arab Spring alone is akin to ten Carter-sponsored Iranian Revolutions. Israel is in serious danger of getting nuked while Obama fiddles and hides.Foreign policy's  an even bigger disaster than the U.S. economy, which is absolutely catastrophic. Real unemployment is over ten percent and not declining.We're headed for another deep recession, as all the indicators suggest if any media outlet would report them. It's probable that no one can undo the damage Obama has done in four short years. Four more years will gurantee a Republican resurgence the likes of which you have never seen or envisioned. Cut your losses. Bail for the good of your own idiotic notions of how government should be run. Bail for the more than 50 percent probability that your own Democratic senators will be forced, at some point, in a second term, to impeach this corrupt little con-man and throw him out of of office to save the nation. Benghazi carries that risk all by itself. Then there's Fast & Furious. Solyndra. And more, much more, to come. Election law violations, dirty bargains with the SEIU and ACORN, administration ties under the table with the Occupy movement, numerous legal violations by the most nakedly political DOJ in history. Even the MSM will have to pounce on one of the hundred simmering scandals they've been ignoring when a big enough stink erupts in the endlessly expanding new media. And when the economy plunges, yet again, any excuse will do. Why Biden was retained on the ticket. Obama's insurance policy. Is that what libs want? Really? Is that how you like to view your mission and destiny, O, ye liberals?

Four points. Is Romney qualified? Sure. Far more than Obama was four years ago. The rest is, as I said, simple, Who would vote for a guy who has contempt for practically everyone, hasn't even tried to do his job from Day One, and would obviously be much much happier on the speech circuit explaining -- like Carter -- how he hasn't totally screwed up the world for the next 50 years?

Quit being polite. Talk to your lib friends. Be prepared to lose them. The alternative is losing our country.

Back to Archive Index

Amazon Honor System Contribute to Learn More