Conservatism Today

Top 10 Positive Effects of an Obama Victory (Updated)

Editor's Update: A little more than 100 days into Obama's term and these are starting to come to fruition already. Who says predicting the future is difficult? Not when your mind is sharp and you heart is pure. Heh.

I've always tried to be an optimistic person, but it's getting tougher regarding the upcoming presidential election. Still, I racked my brain and came up with ten positive side effects we could see thanks to a President Obama. Hopefully, this list will help cheer you up!

10. Fewer Decisions. Let's face it, decision making is something many Americans are not very adept at. Decisions, both little and big, make people nervous.

This year my wife and I decided we would buy me a used convertible with our income tax refund. It was a tough decision. Do we buy the car, go on a nice vacation, buy a bunch of furniture or a home theater system, or place a down-payment on a home? I think we made the right choice, but it wasn't easy. Under Obama, there will be no income tax refund for us. No tax refund, no need to make a decision. Yay!

Obama has said, "We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.”

Great. Buying a vehicle will be much simpler without having to look at SUV's, and there's no reason to look at something Barack says we can't drive. Do you want another plate of food at the buffet? Easy decision - Barack says no. What temperature should you keep your home? Apparently you won't be able to choose 72 degrees. See, isn't this better? (Editor's Update: No decisions for GM shareholders - now the UAW makes all of the decisions - or at least the ones Obama allows it to make. Don't even get me started with the banks.)

9. More quality time. We're gonna be seeing a lot of lines during the four Obama years. Punitive taxes and price controls on oil companies will lead to Carter-esque gas lines. Bring a book! Most Americans wish they had more time to just relax and read a good book. Likewise with health care. Obama's version of universal health care will lead to long waits in the emergency room. More reading time!

But it's not all about just reading. How about being able to spend more time with the family, or just relaxing in your government housing unit? Obama's higher capital gains taxes and business taxes will virtually end investment in the economy. Remember the 7-9% unemployment of the Carter years? It will be returning soon under Obama. Think of all the free time! (Editor's update: Oh look, it already has! 8.9% now and expected to exceed my prediction in May.)

8. And on the eighth day, he stopped the rise of the oceans and healed the planet. And it was good. As a humble Barack said in his premature acceptance of the Democrat nomination:

I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.

After the Obama-Christ causes the oceans to stop rising and heals the planet, maybe we can starting drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

7. Hope. If America actually succeeds in affirmative-actioning Obama into the presidency, just think of the hope that will give to under qualified people everywhere. You want to be a professional bowler, but last time out you bowled a 37? No problem! You want to teach geography, but you think there are 58 states and that Arkansas is closer to Kentucky than Illinois is? No problem! You want to teach college and jumpstart a future presidential candidate's political career with a fundraiser in your home, but you're a terrorist? Oh wait, that already happened.

Seriously, if this man can be President of the United States... just think of what you could accomplish with your life. (Editor's Update: You're a tax cheat, but you want to run the IRS? Anything is possible!)

6. No more white guilt. I've never had a problem with this, but judging by all the votes Obama's been getting, a lot of you do. This will end it once and for all. No more talk of "reparations" for the black community. Now that we've taken care of our guilt with the black community, can we learn a lesson from this please? Next time we feel the need to elect a token minority to high office, can we make sure he's not a socialist first? Is that too much to ask?

One good thing is that everyone's seen Obama's friends at Trinity United Church. If we've learned anything from this primary season, it's that black racism is a bigger problem today than racism aimed at blacks. You've come a long way, whitey!

5. The growth of conservative blogs and websites. An Obama victory would be very good for my expected income from this site. Conservatives tend to be at their best and most active when they are opposing something, and we would have a lot to oppose with a President Obama. The liberal blogosphere didn't catch up and pass us until well into the Iraq war when the left truly became rabid in their hatred of President Bush. Most of us already hate Obama's ideas. We'd have a field day. (Editor's Update: We are.)

4. The mainstream media won't have to ignore the war any longer. It must be real awkward in news production meetings these last few months. How do they justify to themselves the fact that they haven't reported on the war since it became obvious that we were winning? Well, they won't have to anymore, assuming Obama actually follows through on his campaign promise to cut and run. Then again, it's even become obvious to his liberal media friends that leaving Iraq now would be suicidal. I wonder if he cares. Really, I do. (Editor's Update: Broken campaign promise.)

3. Rogue nations can return to business as usual. After spending the last 7 years not attacking American citizens on our own soil, Religion of Peace-rs can get back to plotting to kill us all.

Muammar Qaddafy can come back out of hiding and resume his role as a state sponsor of terrorism. It's like Groundhog Day with that guy. Every time we have a Republican in office, he pops out of his hole and we whack him on the head and he goes into hiding for four (or eight) years. Then we elect a Democrat and he starts sponsoring terrorism again. If Qaddafy comes out of his hole and sees Barack Obama, we get four years of increased terror.

The French and Germans and Russians can go back to aiding our enemies (as if they've ever stopped). Hamas and Iran can go back to trying to wipe Israel off the planet, while Obama and Jimmy Carter sit down with their leaders for tea, or arugula or something.

I've never understood how Obama is supposed to get Muslim terrorists and communists to stop hating America, when he can't get his fellow churchgoers, Muslim friends, communist friends and terrorist friends to stop hating America. This should be interesting. (Editor's Update: A little over 100 days in and the Taliban invades Afghanistan.)

2. Proving to a whole new generation just how dangerous liberals are when they have power. I just graduated from ASU, where I discovered that most students knew nothing about Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan. Of course, it is college kids who played a huge role in getting Obama nominated. Most college kids don't get disillusioned about government power until they reach their 30s or 40s. An Obama presidency would help these kids grow up a little quicker.

Along the same lines...

1. It took a Carter to make Reagan possible. No doubt an Obama presidency would be a repeat of the late 1970's. Assuming the "Carter 2.0" policies have a similar two-year carryover beyond his term, we're talking six very bad years for most Americans. Obama's policies, combined with Democrat majorities in both houses, can't do anything but lead to recession, stagnation, despair, malaise, weakness abroad and loose morality at home. 

That being said, I expect to do fine in any situation. I can take six bad years for the rest of you in order to repeat the following progression:

The last President to be as hated as Bush was Nixon. The result of Nixon and the Vietnam War was peace-pansy-hippies taking over the Democrat Party and electing Jimmy Carter. The result of Carter's ineptitude was Reagan being elected to cut back government in 1980. The result of Reagan was peace, prosperity and the end of the USSR. The result of Reaganism's success was making it impossible for anything but a "New Democrat" to win the oval office. The result of the New Democrat was 9/11. The result of 9/11 was the war in Iraq, and the result of the war in Iraq was peace-pansy-hippies taking over the Democrat Party once again.

Assuming America will learn enough the 2nd time around to not ever trust a liberal again, if it takes six bad years to lead to 25 years as good or better than the great ones we've just had, there could be worse things.

(Editor's Update: For all the people telling me Obama wasn't a socialist, it seems that even I underestimated him. He's more of a socialist than I thought he was.)

Obama to Dominate Among Prisoners, Dead People

Democrats always count on winning the majority of votes from certain key demographic groups. These groups include: felons, trial lawyers, dead people, illegal immigrants, the clinically insane, members of terrorist cells and people who aren't smart enough to figure out how to correctly fill out a ballot.

It appears as if Obama will not only win all these demographics this year, but will add a surprising group. If current voter registration patterns hold, Obama stands to win the "George W. Bush, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue" vote!

According to The Advocate, a Democrat-affiliated group in Louisiana is responsible for the registration of numerous people who typically are not supposed to vote, but always tend to vote Democrat.

VIP is a Washington, D.C., group hired by national Democrats to register some 70,000 new voters in advance of the presidential and other federal elections this fall...

Dardenne said cards are being submitted for people already on the voter rolls and “a significant percentage are being submitted without necessary information to register someone and “blatantly false information.

Two cards received in Caddo Parish had George W. Bush as the voter applicant with a 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. address in Shreveport, Dardenne said. Other cards have been filed for prisoners who cannot vote and dead people. In Jefferson Parish, a voter registration card was filed for the registrar of voters.

Anyone else wonder why Democrats are always against laws that make it harder to commit voter fraud?

Hat tip to Moonbattery.

Obama Favors High Gas Prices

Barack Obama scared me last month when he said, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want   and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and   then just expect that other countries are going to   say OK.”

Now it turns out that Obama is fine with our rising gas prices. Rich Moran at American Thinker shares this exchange Obama had with John Harwood of CNBC:

Barack Obama: I think that... we have been slow to move in a better direction when it comes to energy usage. And the president, frankly, hasn't had an energy policy.* And as a consequence we've been consuming energy as if it's infinite. We now know that our demand is badly outstripping supply with China and India growing as rapidly as they are.

CNBC's John Harwood: So could the (high) oil prices help us?

Barack Obama: I think that I would have preferred a gradual adjustment. The fact that this is such a shock to American pocketbooks is not a good thing. But if we take some steps right now to help people make the adjustment...

So Barack is not happy with the fact that prices have gone up so quickly, but he is happy that they are much higher than they were, and you peons out there who can't afford to fly around the country like he does just need to make some adjustments.

It's all part of this bass-ackwards school of thought shared by many leftists that blames Americans for being so productive that they have to use a lot of energy. Energy, particularly oil, not only fuels our cars but our entire economy. It drives Aerican production, was the precursor to much American progress, and must remain so until a cheaper, viable form of fuel becomes reality.

This fits right in with the first quote I shared. Obama wants to control your thermostat, he wants to take away your SUV, he wants high gas prices to force you to consume less, and he will personally tell you to sit your fat ass down if he sees you even think about going back to the buffet line for seconds without prior UN approval.

Compassionate Conservatives, Illiberal Libs

I think every conservative already knew that conservatives were generally more charitable than their liberal brothers, but I have to admit I was a little surprised with how overwhelmingly more giving we are. It's not even close.

Over the weekend I saw this little number at Liberty Pundit, discussing the findings of Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, who published “Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism.”

– Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

– Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

– People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and “the values that lie beneath” liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.

This, of course, stems from two divergent beliefs. Conservatives believe that it is the duty of the individual to provide for himself first, society second through charity, and government only as a last resort in cases of extreme emergency.  Liberals believe it is the proper role of government to take care of the citizenry at large. In short, conservatives believe in working hard and being generous with their own money. Liberals believe that government should care for everyone, and (according to Air America,  Keith Olbermann and Al Franken) it should do so with your money, not theirs. There is no need to be personally generous when you believe you are being generous by advocating policies that take from someone else to give to those in need. It's really a frightening ideology.

I would prefer to pay much less in taxes, in part so that I could give much more to organizations that I know will do better things with my money than the government ever could. The other part is that it's my money to begin with, and government has no right to steal from me, just to give it to somebody else.

McCain's Unfortunate Stubbornness on Drilling

Money matters. With the war in Iraq being virtually ignored by the main stream media, this election should come down to one issue: drilling for oil. The Dems climate bill defeat last week was another sign that most Americans have made the switch. Some might be concerned about a hypothetical threat to the environment when things are going well, but things change when they can't afford to drive to work anymore.

Republicans should be able to win this election on the back of the single issue of oil, but once again, Maverick was quick to adopt the left's fiscally disastrous climate change propaganda and is, as usual, too stubborn to admit he was wrong.

John at Power Line posted this unfortunate back-and-forth between Fox's Chris Wallace and possible McCain veep candidate Tim Pawlenty: 

WALLACE: Governor Pawlenty, McCain is almost as liberal on a lot of these energy issues as Obama. He opposes drilling in Alaska. He would leave it up to individual states as to whether to allow offshore drilling, which in most cases means that they wouldn't do it. He wants a 60 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. He talks about a national campaign for energy independence, but he's even less specific than Obama is.

PAWLENTY: Well, Chris, he's been very specific on a number of things, and I would also say this is another example of separating the rhetoric from the reality.

Senator McCain has led on this issue, much to the chagrin of some parts of the Republican Party. Senator Obama continues just to toe the line robotically with the Democratic caucus in Congress.

He votes 95 or so percent every year. What change has he really led? What big thing has he crossed over and said, "I'll work with the Republicans on?" The answer is nothing. Here you have Senator...

Ugh. Pawlenty is so hamstrung by McCain's idiocy on drilling in ANWR and offshore that he can't really do anything except say, "well at least that shows that McCain is able to cross the aisle." No crap, we know McCain can cross the aisle. The question is, "Can he find his way back to the other side?"

That said, Van Helsing at Moonbattery points out that at least McCain supports taking back the obscene oil profits of government.

Despite his Big Government proclivities and hostility to a sane energy policy, McCain is at least calling for federal gas tax relief. But even further to the left, B. Hussein calls tax relief a gimmick.

Mark Steyn: Obama, Political Viagra

Good, short piece at NRO from the man who is fast becoming my favorite columnlist, Mark Steyn:

If Obama is political Viagra, the media are at that stage in the ad where the announcer warns that, if leg tingles persist for over six months, see your doctor.

Out there in the voting booths, however, Democrat legs stayed admirably unthrilled. The more the media told Hillary she was toast and she should get the hell out of it and let Obama romp to victory, the more Democrats insisted on voting for her. The more the media insisted Barack was inevitable, the less inclined the voters were to get with the program...In the end, he crawled over the finish line. The Obama Express came a-hurtlin’ down the track at two miles an hour.

This is all true. Aside from the fanatical fawning and fainting crowds, most Democrat voters exhibited buyers' remorse, overwhelming choosing Hillary.

Steyn quotes Obama's speech where he expressed his humility at receiving the nomination and then went on to say, "(W)e will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal… This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation…" Steyn observes the following:

It’s a good thing he’s facing it with “profound humility,” isn’t it? Because otherwise who knows what he’d be saying. But mark it in your calendars: June 3, 2008 — the long awaited day, after 232 years, that America began to provide care for the sick. Just a small test program: 47 attendees of the Obama speech were taken to hospital and treated for nausea. Everyone else came away thrilled that the Obamessiah was going to heal the planet and reverse the rise of the oceans: when Barack wants to walk on the water, he doesn’t want to have to use a step-ladder to get up on it...

To be honest I prefer a republic whose citizenry can muster no greater enthusiasm for their candidate than “stilted cheers” to one in which the crowd wants to hoist the nominee onto their shoulders for promising to lower ocean levels within his first term. As for coming together “to remake this great nation,” if it’s so great, why do we have to remake it?

Amen. Nothing scares me more than seeing people going nuts about a candidate who thinks he can make government fix people's problems. There is no greater problem in America today than the millions of Americans who look to government to provide for their security. Greatness has never been achieved in any area of life by looking to someone else to provide for one's needs. As Ronald Reagan said, "Government is not the solution, government is the problem."

Speaking personally, I don’t want to remake America. I’m an immigrant and one reason I came here is because most of the rest of the western world remade itself along the lines Sen. Obama has in mind. This is pretty much the end of the line for me. If he remakes America, there’s nowhere for me to go — although presumably once he’s lowered sea levels around the planet there should be a few new atolls popping up here and there.

And there will be nowhere left for any of us to go to either. Steyn is dead-on here, the rest of the world has already slipped off into the leftward abyss that Obama would plunge us into.

Nothing in Obama’s resume suggests he’s the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only this week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew,” said the senator, in what’s becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn’t the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he’s known for 20 years. Yet at the same time as he’s being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama’s convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America’s enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly up and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, President Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that “this isn’t the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew.”

Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don’t. And, if Chris Matthews and the tingly legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric.

I thought I was the only one who giggled whenever I heard an Obama speech. If Obama can't help his own friends and wife overcome their hatred of America, how is he supposed to convince terrorists to stop hating us? If Obama is a uniter, how come he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate and hasn't any bi-partisan accomplishments of note?

Housing Market Begins to Turn Around

From Rick Moran at American Thinker:

"Sales of existing homes increased much more than analysts thought in April - a possible sign that the rash of foreclosures have enticed bargain hunters back into the market."

The Yahoo article goes on to say:

The National Association of Realtors Pending Home Sales Index, based on contracts signed in April and seen as a key barometer of future housing activity, increased 6.3 percent to 88.2 from an unrevised 83.0 in March. Despite the uptick, sales were 13.1 percent lower than a year ago.

I've seen signs of this in Phoenix recently. With plummeting home prices, bargain hunters have begun to come out of the shadows. Condo prices stopped falling in Phoenix for the first time in over a year last month. In fact, my wife and I will be closing on a sweetheart deal some time in the next week.

If you haven't yet taken advantage of this excellent time to buy, you might consider doing so soon. I expect that we've seen the bottom and the national housing market will return to positive growth in the near future.

Is Obama the Unity Candidate? What does he Really Think About Whitey?

In his own words...

UPDATE:

Mattinglyinthehall, an old friend from Rotoguru (my favorite fantasy sports site, with a great political forum) pointed out the following:

Your entry is titled, "Is Obama the Unity Candidate? What does he Really Think About Whitey?" The entry assumes and propagates something entirely different from the original intended context. Here's the text from your entry:

"That's just how white folks will do you. It wasn't merely the cruelty involved; I was learning that black people could be mean and then some. It was a particular brand of arrogance, an obtuseness in otherwise sane people that brought forth our bitter laughter. It was as if whites didn't know they were being cruel in the first place. Or at least thought you were deserving of their scorn. White folks."

Obama in that excerpt appears to claim explicitly and in the present that white people are cruel, arrogent and obtuse to the point of deservedly evoking "bitter laughter" from blacks. But a reading of Dreams From My Father will confirm that he wasn't expressing his present-day opinions at the time he wrote that excerpt. The book is about the evolution of his development and coming to terms with his multi-cultural background. In the clip you provide in your entry, he was discussing a phase he went through during his time as an undergrad at Occidental College, 15 years before the book was published.

Here is my response:

I've read parts of "Dreams" and "Audacity" and I'm aware that many of the quotes taken from his books allegedly reflect his thinking at a previous time, but supposedly not at the time he published them and definitely not now.

I understand that using them out of their proper context might be considered akin to taking McCain's comments about Iraq and saying he wants to see US troops fighting another 100 years there.

I would disagree. I would never stoop to Obama's level. The difference is that Obama continued to attend a church for 20 years that propagated this mindset that he speaks of as being in the past in his books. If he held this belief 15 years before the book, but not after, why did he seek out a church and spiritual leader who taught those harmful attitudes and worse? A church where even the visiting white pastor hates white people?

Why does the greatest sermon he ever heard (and named his book after) teach that "white folk's greed runs a world in need?" Why did he allow his kids to grow up in an environment that taught the same harmful lessons that Barack says were wrong?

I'm not buying it, so I will use his quotes in their original context, as I believe his actions over the past 20 years show that he still believes them to be true.

I believe Obama is a racist. If I'm right, and enough people agree with me, we avoid having a guy who hates whitey in office.

Perhaps I'm wrong. If enough people join me in being wrong, Obama won't be able to ruin our healthcare system, lose the war, raise my taxes and increase the spread of socialism in America.

I fail to see the downside.

Could McCain beat Obama Among Women?

Bob Novak mentioned this in his column yesterday, a column that discussed Hillary's seemingly-nonexistent VP chances. Buried in it was an incredible stat if it comes anywhere near holding up in November:    

This resentment (ed: of Obama's victory over Clinton) is reflected in a nationwide private poll this month by McLaughlin Associates, which usually works for Republican clients but is not connected with the McCain campaign. Polltaker John McLaughlin found a 49 percent to 38 percent edge by McCain over Obama among all women. 

That is a stunning number in a demographic that always goes Democrat. On a side note, I'm trying to understand why he points out that the pollster wasn't working for the McCain campaign when he already mentioned that McLaughlin prefers Republican clients. Duh?

Novak goes on to say that conventional wisdom holds that women will return to the Democrat camp, once they calm their out of control emotions I suppose, but that seems less likely right now based on the events in my posts from earlier today. He concludes with this:    

Clinton backers who will now declare full support of the nominee in public take a different position when promised that their names will not be used. They frankly question whether Obama should be president. I asked one Democrat, a longtime political worker and sometime candidate for public office, whether he actually would vote for Obama. He paused, then replied: "Let me put it this way. I would sleep better if John McCain was president."

A lot of people seem to be reaching the same conclusion. Is this really possible?

Lieberman Joins the Chaos, Launches Pro-McCain Group

Senator Joe Lieberman, former VP candidate for Al Gore, has joined the deluge of Clinton Democrats actively fighting for the election of John McCain over Barack Obama, according to CNN.

"Citizens for McCain" will appeal directly to Clinton's supporters.

“The phones at the campaign headquarters have been ringing with disaffected Democrats calling to say they believe Senator McCain has the experience, judgment, and bipartisanship necessary to lead our country in these difficult times,” Lieberman wrote in a message sent to the Arizona senator’s supporters. “Many of these supporters are former supporters of Senator Clinton...”

“I am confident we will find many Democrats and Independents who, like John McCain and me, put country before political party and will support a leader with a real record of bipartisanship…. Together, we will make history.”

I've got to say, I'm not too surprised by this one. McCain and Lieberman are good buds and ideologically nearly the same person.

I have always had more respect for Lieberman politically than I do for McCain, in that Lieberman sometimes crosses the aisle because the other party is right, while McCain seems to cross the aisle for the express purpose of pissing off Republicans and ingratiating himself to the media.

This is certainly bad news for the Obama campaign. I thought that the party would unify eventually, but too many people are making it clear that they aren't ready to vote a child in as President. As much as I dislike Hillary, clearly she and McCain are the only adults in the race.

This is also an open signal to Reagan Democrats, who generally love Lieberman, that Obama is not acceptable. I'm nearing the point of wagering real money on McCain in this - especially since he's a pretty good-sized underdog right now at 3:2. If I had to place it right now, I'd say McCain has about of 55% chance of winning this thing, which is absolutely incredible given President Bush's approval ratings. If you like a little action now and then, I think the price is right on that pick.

Does anyone else think the tide is turning strongly in McCain's favor? Let me know in the comments.

Enjoying the Clinton 'Operation Chaos' Fallout

I've been trolling the lefty blogs this morning and have been quite amused to see how much dislike there is for the Obamisogynist. A prime example comes from Uppity Woman. Her masthead reads, "I'm Uppity - An insulted Democrat who refuses to accept a vain, shallow, narcissistic, sexist and racist pig with a resume the size of a postage stamp as a presidential candidate." Other gems from the site:

Does he really imagine he can wave his Magic Hopey Changey Wand and all white women, Latinos gays and lesbians, Garlic Noses, Catholics, Jews, Old People, and "Bitter Hicks" are going to get amnesia?

Is he imagining that his beloved Marxism is already in place or something?

How insulting can one pig be without even trying? It kind of makes you wonder what kind of evil crap he could do if he actually put his mind to it.

Ah well, nevermind. We will let him know in November if he is able to continue his limp into August without one of those nasty closet skeletons falling out. That would be just awful wouldn't it????

"I would like to thank the DNC for Affirmative Actioning some of Hillary's delegates and all the delegates of other people voters chose. I am humbled by the way they were willing to cheat for me. It's so........so.....Chicago! I felt right at home!

Anyone who thinks Operation Chaos wasn't one of the best tactical maneuvers in American political history is out of their tree. We've got Democrat women borrowing our talking points now! Welcome to the club, ladies and thank you, Rush!

Given the reaction we've seen from major segments of the lefty blogosphere and efforts like the group in my previous post, how big of an impact do you think Democrat anger/bitterness at the way Hillary has been treated by the Dems will have on the election? I'm beginning to think it's going to be very difficult for Obama to overcome this. 

Hillary Clinton Supporters Organize For John McCain

Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain:

I want my grandkids to be free and that includes being free from the fear of being killed by a terrorist. If Obama is elected, you better hope he adopts Hillary Health Care plan, because you are going to need it with his idea of "Security" for this country. I am one of them bible thumping, gun toting red necks and dam proud of it.

According to Carl Cameron of Fox News, this new 527 group has already received 400,000 hits in just a couple days. McCain, of course, is against all 527 groups, the logical consequence of his McCain/Feingold anti free speech bill.

If only he could get this many conservatives interested in his candidacy.

Obama: "This isn't the Tony Rezko I Knew"

Tony Rezko, Barack Obama's close friend, campaign-financer, next-door neighbor and real estate agent, was found guilty earlier today on 16 counts of corruption: Rezko convicted of corruption

Obama's response?

"I'm saddened by today's verdict," Obama said Wednesday. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform.

How many times is he going to get away with this? Every time one of his close friends (or his spouse) is found to be a crook, a racist, a terrorist or a general America-hater, Obama claims ignorance. Yet he claims he has the judgment necessary to lead this country? 

If that's the case, this isn't the United States I knew.

I'd like to hear from anyone who is buying the repeated use of this argument in the comments.

The Liberal Mind Part II: Fight

Part I: Flight

The remaining 30% of liberals I talk to seem to be evenly split among the "fight" and "conversion" responses. While the converts are the most satisfying, the fighters are the most fun.

Unlike the flight-liberals category, the fighter has just enough of a knowledge of their subject combined with not nearly enough ability to think logically, that they are downright frightening. These people must be defeated, and defeated soundly. They must be made to look as bad as is humanly possible; they must be totally discredited and humiliated. More from John Ray...

My basic proposal, then, is that most (but not all) Leftists/liberals are motivated by strong ego needs -- needs for power, attention, praise and fame. And in the USA and other developed countries they satisfy this need by advocating large changes in the society around them -- thus drawing attention to themselves and hopefully causing themselves to be seen as wise, innovative, caring etc.

The fighter is the guy to be sarcastic with, to laugh at, to (as Rush Limbaugh says) "illustrate absurdity by being absurd." For example, if a fighter spouts off some silly slogan like "No war for oil," I would, tongue firmly planted in cheek, explain how oil is the most precious commodity in the world right now, and I can't think of any better reason for war than oil. In fact, what we need is "More war for oil."

This will bring the fighter quickly to his most common state: smug, sanctimonious self-righteousness. Whatever response follows will be irrational, mean and will serve to make the guy look like the nutjob that he is, especially if you are able to just sit there laughing through it all. They can't take laughter. They want to be seen as serious, praiseworthy, caring people. There ego damands it.

Those who have all that they want materially then seek other luxuries: such as self-righteousness, praise, power and excitement -- particularly the excitement of being demonstrators in the case of "rich kid" Leftists. And if the young limousine liberal can have praise and self-righteousness along with his/her excitement what a good deal it is! It is much the same motivation that causes self-made rich men (such as Bill Gates) to become highly philanthropic. Bill Gates has power and wealth so he now seeks praise and righteousness.

The key is to either not accept their premises, or completely accept their premises and have fun with it. Never give an inch. Liberalism is predicated on naivete. They get in the door by making some argument that sounds plausible, like "the rich don't pay their fair share." If you accept part of this silly premise, you've lost. You must either accept none of it or all of it.

If you accept it completely, deciding to illustrate absurdity by being absurd, you can say, "yeah that's true, it is unfair that the wealthiest 1% of Americans pay nearly 40% of all income taxes. We should be taxing them 100% on any income over $1 million dollars." You can then go from there and easily show how the economy would crumble in a matter of about 20 minutes and no poor person in this country would have a job, which is always the eventual outcome of overtaxing wealthy capital investors.

Or you accept nothing of the premise, and make the principled argument that the Constitution promises equality before the law, that the government has no right to decide how much money anyone makes, that the free market works to provide everyone what they are justly worth. Or, you illustrate absurdity by being absurd while not accepting the premise. The argument there would be an argument I made in "Time for the poor to pay their fair share." How serious was I? Slightly. I do, in fact, think people would be more careful what they voted for if they had to pay income tax, however I do realize that certainly there is an income level where most people may want to offer a break in the interest of helping the poor improve their lives.

The point is not which argument you use. What matters is that it be enough to send your fighter-lib into shocked outrage, which exhibits itself as irrational anger and makes him look like a nut.

The more "revolutionary" and Trotskyite Left often use the word "smash" in their slogans (e.g. smash racism, smash capitalism, smash various political leaders) so it seems probable that some Leftists simply lust to smash things. They seek a socially acceptable excuse for their barely suppressed destructive urges. They presumably are the ones who are responsible for the violence and destruction that often accompanies Leftist street and campus demonstrations. Violent change is what they are interested in. Presumably, in another time and place, many of them would have joined Hitler's Brownshirts.

Sneaking anything about God or morality into the conversation will usually accomplish the same thing. Remember, most Americans are Christians, even on a college campus, and do not react favorably to people who have no concept of morality, so when your fighter lib rails against Christianity he is alienating himself from most of society. This is why you almost never see liberal politicians attacking Christianity through words; they know better.

This is why Barack Obama has to pretend to be Christian, going to the only Christian church he was comfortable in: that of an America-hating, racist, former-Muslim opportunist who saw a chance to make a buck by scaring poor black people into the victim mentality. So the nuanced politician, like Obama or Clinton, attacks Christianity through policies, which most people are not inclined to notice, while pretending to live a Christian life personally. Your fighter-lib on the street is likely not yet nuanced enough to know the difference. Get him to show his true colors any way you can.

At the height of the Cold War, Leftists would routinely claim that Communist regimes and the economically successful "Western" democracies such as the United States were morally equivalent -- that neither was more blameworthy or praiseworthy than the other. When President Reagan called a spade a spade and described the USSR as an "evil empire", this was regarded as shocking and ignorant by US liberals. How anybody can see any equivalence between systems that murder millions without trial because of their suspected political views (as Stalin did in the USSR and Pol Pot did in "Kampuchea") and countries that either have no death penalty at all or agonize over every such penalty that they inflict (even when the penalty is for the most heinous crimes) defies imagination.

If it shows nothing else, their assertions of moral equivalence show the utter amorality of Leftists. Stalin's heirs are among us. His mass murders certainly appear to be regarded by many Leftists in the economically successful "Western" democracies as merely awkward from a PR point of view rather than wrong. In psychiatry, amorality is the mark of the psychopath -- the "moral imbecile" who just cannot tell right from wrong and who commits murders and other heinous crimes with a clear conscience as a result. "Moral equivalence" would therefore appear to be reasonably described as psychopathy in politics.

So Leftism could be seen as a Godless religion -- something that meets the religious needs of those who for various reasons are dissatisfied either with other religions or with supernatural ideas in general. Not all religions have a dominant God or father-figure at their centre (e.g. Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto) and a religion that dispenses with the supernatural altogether does not therefore seem impossibly paradoxical. The identification of Leftism as a religion has often been made and the ability to believe in things that sound good but have very little supportive evidence would certainly seem to constitute a common core between Leftism and other religions. Both Leftists and the religious could, in other words, be seen as the wishful thinkers of the world: A very large throng. And, as a religion originally emanating from the economically successful "Western" democracies, Leftism is typical in being very proselytizing and intolerant of competing religions.

From a Christian point of view, of course, one could well see the Left as the Devil's religion. It denies God and wears the compassionate clothes of Christ to cloak the black and hating heart that its destructive deeds reveal.

The fighters are usually the ones who have totally bought into "the Devil's religion." They must be defeated completely in the realm of ideas. Just have fun doing it, stay positive, and you'll find it quite simple to do so. And you'll entertain and educate those around you who witness it.

Could this be why Hillary Isn't Leaving: Possible Michelle O'Bama Bombshell?

The interesting stuff begins around 1:20 into the video.

Now that the usually credible Democrat analyst Bob Beckel  admitted to being concerned that there "might be a very big shoe dropping on Michelle Obama tomorrow," I think it's valid to speculate whether this might be why Clinton refused to end her campaign today. For those that are unaware, rumors have surfaced in the past couple weeks, mostly from Clinton-backer Larry Johnson, who has a fairly respectable reputation. 

It lends credence to some of what I've heard, that a tape exists of Michelle Obama speaking on a panel or at her ex-church in a manner that would be consistent with what we've learned about Trinity United Church. This version of her alleged words is from The Strata-Sphere:

"Once again, the white man keeps us down, what’s up with Whitey, Why’d he attack Iraq, Why’d he let Katrina happen, Why’d he leave millions of children behind. This is the legacy the white man gives us.”

Obama supporter Beckel's charge that if true, the bombshell would sink Obama's campaign is striking. I'm in no position to say whether such a tape exists, but what is notable to me is that nobody in the world has said "no way it's true, Michelle would never say something like that!"

Rumors have surfaced that the woman who wants to be first lady of the United States issued a racist tirade aimed at "whitey" and everyone in the country thinks, "yeah, I could see her saying that." How Obama won the nomination is beyond comprehension. This has to be the most bizarre election year ever.

Conservatism IS Progress

 

For over 230 years now, the United States has travelled the long highway to exceptionalism internationally and abundant prosperity and freedom at home. Aside from an occasional speed bump, America has stood tall as the single most important force for progress in the world. Since 1980 American Conservatives have paved onward, expanding the lanes as we've gone and allowing an ever-growing number of citizens at home and previously-enslaved people throughout the world to join us on the road to an even greater future. Today, the end of that pavement lies just ahead in plain sight. The battle wages before us as we make the choices that will decide whether we do the hard work needed to extend the highway of progress straight ahead into a more prosperous, freer future, or whether we will reverse course and make a sharp left turn onto the old, dusty road leading to regression, government repression and economic recession.

Unfortunately, those that would move us toward that leftward path have confiscated the language of politics. We see two neo-Marxists running for the Democrat Party nomination using a repackaged version of the ideas that led to the Stalinist/Leninist former Soviet Union. They call their ideas "progressive" (or secular-progressive when they're feeling slightly less dishonest). I call them "dangerous."

We see populists on both sides preaching the same "us versus them" doctrine that has created repressive tyrants and economic calamity every time it's been carried to its logical end. We see free market capitalism under attack daily by those who claim to be "forward-thinking" but whose policies would undermine the very system that has made America a beacon of hope and progress.

We see junk-scientists lying that this very progress is killing our planet, and that the only way to turn it around is to follow the same gameplan the socialists have been peddling for 50 years. We see a presidential candidate attempting to remake the Republican Party into some sort of squishy Democrat-Lite Party, audaciously trying to redefine American Conservatism to make it include himself, as its leader.

It is time for American Conservatives to take back what rightfully belongs to us, beginning with that language.

In their insightful book, "The Right Nation: Conservative Power in America," British authors John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge explain what a rare breed American Conservatives are. This stems from our unique national history. Most people in the world who call themselves conservatives preach a stodgy, anti-progress ideology. Not so with American Conservatives.

As the first nation founded under the belief that government receives its power from "we the people," American Conservatives hope to conserve the still-revolutionary ideas of our founders, including our God-given right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We hold fast to freedom from government oppression, cherish our strong private property rights, favor free markets, low taxation and limited federal government. Under the language used at the time of our founding, most Conservative Americans are actually classic liberals. The socialist/progressives stole that word from us long ago. Barack Obama, who opposes almost all the items I mentioned above, has been called the "Most Liberal Senator" of 2007. Talk about change!

As a 33-year old who just graduated with a degree in journalism, I was surprised to learn that most of my classmates have no idea why Ronald Reagan stands alone as the most revered and beloved president in recent history. If they know little about Ronald the Great, they know even less about Jimmy Carter, and therein lies my mission. Never in American history were the differences between two successive presidents more profound, and the results of their policies more easily recognized than the time period between 1977 and 1988.

Carter's lone term illustrated the disastrous effects of combining a liberal president with a liberal congress. He was such a disaster that even the predominately liberal media of the time couldn't comprehend the havoc he wreaked on this country. Only the creation of the misery index allowed them to accurately report the depths of despair he led us into, and even that index didn't take into account America's declining world influence and the expansion of Soviet allies throughout the world.

Ronald Reagan's policies, and yes his optimism, turned this nation around. Since his dramatic tax cuts took full effect, America has realized nearly uninterrupted prosperity. Only his non-believing VP, George HW Bush (who referred to Reagan's tax cutting plan as "voodoo economics", failed to extend the prosperity. The supposedly disastrous economy of today actually ranks as an above average year, based on the misery index, in the last half-century.

But now we stand poised to throw it all away. Both Obama and McCain have more in common with Jimmy Carter than with Ronald Reagan.

This blog will follow the political scene forward, attempting to encourage debate and to influence where we go from here. One of the great things about Reagan is that his speeched before becoming president accurately reflect the way he tried to lead the country while in office. This is rare indeed. I will apply those ideas to the world we face today.

At the same time, we will help educate the newest generation about the greatness of American Conservative ideals. The nation and the world progress every time they are implemented. I firmly believe that today's liberalism stands no chance if the battle is waged in full view of an informed public. Conservatives win on ideas and logic every time.

In all my posts I will look to the words and actions of my hero, doing my best to answer one question:

"What would Reagan do?"

 

 

The Liberal Mind Part I: Flight

I have a favorite outdoor bar in Tempe, just off the ASU campus, where I used to hang out between classes. I have a bad habit of breaking all known rules of polite discussion, including often discussing politics. When speaking with liberals, I encounter three different reactions: flight, fight or conversion.

Flight

This is the most common response, accounting for probably 70% of all liberals I talk politics with. Liberals are not used to having their "ideas" challenged. Now, I always attempt to do this in the best of humor, using wit and logic to try to bring the poor guy to his senses. Two types of liberals tend to go into flight mode: the ignorant and the ego-driven (you can see why this category makes 70% of the liberals I talk to). Once they realize that I will tear to shreds any argument they might bring up, laugh at their little platitudes and slogans before firing back a better one, and generally make them look silly in front of their friends, they attempt a graceful exit from the conversation.

This rarely works, because a liberal who has never seriously considered the effects of the policies he proposes (ie, most liberals) is usually reduced to a sputtering mess when his emotional, infantile arguments are exposed to the light of logical, reasoned thought.

I'm going to borrow a lot from John Ray's writings here, and here:

...given his slender intellectual and rhetorical resources, the Leftist has to make up for (his) emptiness by advocating... blindly and vigorously... They need public attention; they need to demonstrate outrage; they need to feel wiser and kinder and more righteous than most of their fellow man...

Some people become liberals because they are genuinely outraged by things that they do not understand and are unwise enough to want to change those things willy nilly. In particular, they may be genuinely grieved by the unhappy experiences of others and want to fix that ASAP without being wise enough to seek for means of fixing it that have some prospect of working or that are not self-defeating.

They might, for instance, be disturbed by the impact of rising rents on the poor and propose rent-control as a quick-fix solution -- though a few minutes of thought or the most elementary inquiry should tell them that rent control will after a time also have the effect of degrading and shrinking the existing stock of rental accommodation and drying up the supply of new rental accommodation, both of which make the poor much worse off in the long run.

The Leftist may still be young and unaware of most of life's complexities so that the drastically simple "solutions" and mantras proffered by the Left simply seem reasonable.

That last graph explains the Obama phenomenon that I see daily among college students, ignorant skulls full of mush who don't know enough and aren't inquisitive enough to know that his vision of "hope" and "change" is simply recycled socialism.

There are three benefits to putting this type of liberal into flight mode.

1. It tends to curb their needs to demonstrate public outrage and to receive attention. The liberal who has just looked like a fool in front of his friends and random bystanders is going to more wisely choose where he spouts his nonsense in the future. If he chooses to cling to his beliefs, at least I know I won't be hearing them at my hangout anymore. People who might agree with that person are also going to know that they can't win a debate with me. I now have a safe zone for a couple days until the next poor sap decides to start a political conversation with me.

2. Any time your public discussion leaves the other party sputtering and fleeing with no response, you have just increased your stature in the eyes of the people who witnessed it. This also minimizes future disruptions. while slowly converting people who witness it. One of the bartenders at Mamacita's, a left leaning young woman, told me the other day that she looks forward to overhearing my conversations whenever I'm there. She marveled about how I stay so calm and logical and friendly, while other people are left looking silly. Because of this, she now listens to my arguments with a more open mind and has been swayed on some subjects.

3. After seeing his ideas easily destroyed, the liberal may re-evaluate his views. More likely is that he will just be slightly less openly political, and will slightly suppress his liberal activity.

Dealing with this type of liberal is fun, but it leaves you a little unfulfilled. This is an 'appetizer' liberal. He gets the juices flowing, but leaves you hungry for more. I will look at a more interesting version next time, the liberal who fights back.

Anti-Gun Activist Stabbed to Death

I don't even know where to begin on this one.

It reminds me of the All in the Family episode where the whiny liberal daughter was complaining about how many people are killed by guns each year and Archie responded with something along the lines of, "would you prefer, little lady, if they was thrown outta windows?"

Hat tip to Hot Air.

Ronald Reagan: Real Hope, Real Change, Real Optimism, Real Freedom

Every time Barack Obama opens his mouth, he shows himself to be a bigger fraud. I thought it would be nice to remind everyone of the difference between Obama's false hope in government and Ronald Reagan's real hope of freedom.

Some in the media have compared Barack Obama's supposed charisma and speaking ability to the real charisma and real power of Ronald Reagan's words. They have said that each man is defined by simple optimism about "hope" and "change."

Those who would make the comparison ignore one important difference: Ronald Reagan spoke about ground-breaking ideas, and Reagan's speeches almost always focused on individual freedom. Nothing illustrates the difference between the two better than a comparison of their ideas about what constituted "hope" and "change." I have bolded all words pertaining to hope, change, freedom and individual liberty. You can do this with almost any Reagan speech, and most of the speech will be in boldface type.

The following Reagan quotes are taken from his speech in Westminster on June 8, 1982, shortly after his meeting with Pope John Paul II, when Reagan and the Pope pledged to do everything in their power to bring down Soviet communism. Note that this was at a time when absolutely nobody in academia or the media felt that the Soviet Union was in any sort of danger of imminent downfall.

In an ironic sense, Karl Marx was right...But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West, but in the home of Marxism-Leninism, the Soviet Union. It is the Soviet Union that runs against the tide of history by denying freedom and human dignity to its citizens...The dimensions of its failure are astounding: a country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture is unable to feed its own people...

The decay of the Soviet experiment (remember, nobody else was talking about this - in fact, media reports in the coming days insisted that Reagan was loony if he thought the Soviet Union was in any real danger) should come as no surprise to us. Wherever the comparison has been made between free and closed societies...it is the democratic countries that are prosperous and responsive to the needs of their people...

We must be staunch in our conviction that freedom is not the sole prerogative of a lucky few, but the inalienable and universal right of all human beings. The objective I propose is quite simple to state: To foster the infrastructure of democracy -- the system of a free press, unions, political parties, universities-- which allows a people to choose their own way, to develop their own culture, to reconcile their own differences through peaceful means...

I do not wish to sound overly optimistic... (But) what I am describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term-- the march of freedom and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash heap of history as it has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression of individual freedom...

Let us be shy no longer -- let us go to our strength. Let us offer hope. Let us tell the world that a new age is not only possible but probable...What kind of people are we? Free people, worthy of freedom and determined not only to remain so, but to help others gain their freedom as well...

Let us now begin a major effort to secure the best -- a crusade for freedom that will...let us move toward a world in which all people are at last free to determine their own destiny.

More inspirational words have not been uttered in American political history. By the way, the entire Iron Curtain fell within ten years of this speech.

EJ Dionne is so far off in the above article when he writes, "It's laughable to hear conservatives talk darkly about a "cult of personality" around Obama. The Reaganites, after all, have lobbied to name every airport, school, library, road, bridge, government building and lamppost after the Gipper. When it comes to personality cults, the right wing knows what it's talking about."

Yes, we have done all the above. But it has nothing to do with a "cult of personality." Reagan's legacy is a "cult of ideas," ideas that did more to change the world for the better than any president since Lincoln, at a minimum. I would argue that he did more to change the world for the better than any politician in world history. Lincoln freed the American slaves; Reagan freed half the world. Without firing a shot.

Meanwhile, Obama's "hope" is predicated on running from our obligation to ensure that we leave a free, democratic future in place for the Iraqi people. It is predicated on denying people freedom to choose how to provide (or not to provide) for their own health care needs. It is predicated on stealing from those who succeed in our free market system, and redistributing it to those who don't.

Obama's hope would sacrifice our freedom at the altar of the false religion and junk science of man-made global warming. It is predicated on more power to the government and less freedom to the individual.  It is predicated on sacrificing our sovereignty to the United Nations. As he said recently, “We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.” It is also based on sacrificing our sovereignty to those who enter our country illegally. He would continue our governmental policy of restricting freedom in managing our Social Security benefits.

Obama's hope is predicated on restricting school choice, particularly to our inner-city kids who need it most, while choosing to send his own kids to private school. It is predicated on eliminating or severely limiting our Second Amendment rights. It is predicated on destroying the free market and restricting free trade. Obama's hope would punish businesses that succeed, while propping up government "Barack-racies" that fail.

This is all spelled out, in different words, in Obama's "Blueprint for Change."

Meanwhile, could there be a starker difference between Reagan's and Obama's views of average Americans?

Obama:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

How inspiring. Ronald Reagan, speaking in the middle of the 2nd worst economy in American history, saw a different picture of the average American:

Everywhere we have met thousands of Democrats, independents and Republicans from all economic conditions and walks of life bound together in that community of shared values of family, work, neighborhood, peace and freedom. They are concerned, yes, but they are not frightened. They are disturbed but not dismayed. They are the kind of men and women Tom Paine had in mind when he wrote -- during the darkest days of the American Revolution -- 'We have it in our power to begin the world over again.'

And so they did. No comparison whatsoever, but as long as liberals think you don't need ideas to inspire most Americans, more power to them.

Breaking Down the Clinton 'Vanity (af)Fair' Article

In case you haven't heard, Vanity Fair has come out with an article about post-presidency Bill that includes some less than flattering allegations. Clinton has already bashed the story in a prepared statement, calling it "a tawdry, anonymous quote-filled attack piece" that  "repeats many past attacks on him, ignores much prior positive coverage, includes numerous errors, and ultimately breaks no new ground."

Author Todd Purdum (husband of former Clinton press secretary Dee Dee Myers) writes a tedious, long-winded piece typical of the pseudo-intellectual, ultra-liberal, Vanity Fair rag, turning what should have been a four-page story into eight full pages of text. Purdum (who clearly used to be madly in love with Clinton) reaches the following conclusion early on in the piece: 

To know Clinton is, sooner or later, to be exasperated by his indiscipline and disappointed by his shortcomings. But through it all, it has been easy enough to retain an enduring admiration—even affection—for a president whose sins against decorum and the dignity of his office seemed venial in contrast to the systemic indifference, incompetence, corruption, and constitutional predations of his successor’s administration. That is, easy enough until now.

The rest of the story explores the things Purdum learned that made him figure out that Clinton is a scumbag, albeit a lovable scumbag. Yes, it takes a Vanity Fair writer 16 years covering Clinton to finally discover what every person with eyes to see and ears to hear already knew.

Allow me to break down the known facts, allegations and suggestions in the article:

-- Clinton hangs around with a shady crowd including Ron Burkle, a California billionaire and bachelor whose "means of transport is the custom-converted Boeing 757 that Clinton calls “Ron Air” and that Burkle’s own circle of young aides privately refer to as “Air Fuck One.” 

But among the not-so-small cadre of Clinton friends and former aides, concern about the company the boss keeps is persistent, palpable, and pained. No former president of the United States has ever traveled with such a fast crowd, and most 61-year-old American men of Clinton’s generation don’t, either. “I just think those guys are radioactive,” one former aide to Clinton who is still in occasional affectionate touch with him told me recently, referring to Burkle and (to a lesser extent) Bing. “I stay far away from them.”

-- Clinton receives a great deal of his income from some of these friends:

But Clinton’s business relationship with Burkle is far and away his largest source of income after books and speeches: $15.4 million between 2003 and 2007, according to the Clintons’ recently released tax returns..

Burkle is perhaps the single best example of the self-reinforcing network of rich... supporters Clinton has built since his White House years. For Clinton’s re-election campaign Burkle held regular fund-raisers...and has also raised millions of dollars for Hillary Clinton’s campaigns. What has Clinton done in return? Burkle himself has said that Clinton has provided invaluable introductions and entrée to potential investors, including the Teamsters union.

Typical "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" stuff there, but he's also hanging out with sexual predators. Birds of a feather:

In 2002, Clinton flew to Africa with the New York investor Jeffrey Epstein on his private Boeing 727 on an anti-aids and economic-development mission... In 2006, Epstein was indicted on state charges of soliciting prostitution...and he later came under investigation by federal authorities amid allegations that he hired under-age girls for massages and more in a house stocked with sex toys and genitalia-shaped soaps. He remains the subject of at least four pending civil lawsuits from young women and is reportedly expected to accept a plea deal on a state charge that would give him 18 months in prison, followed by house arrest.

More disturbing is that Clinton has followed Jimmy Carter's lead on subverting American foreign policy abroad. Unlike Carter, who does these things out of genuine stupidity, Clinton at least makes a good profit selling out his country's national interests:

Even more troubling is Clinton’s relationship with the Canadian mining magnate Frank Giustra. This winter, a lengthy investigative report in The New York Times disclosed that, in 2005, Clinton flew to the Central Asian country of Kazakhstan on Giustra’s MD-87 jet for what was billed as a philanthropic three-country tour. The two men had dinner with President Nursultan Nazarbayev, who has held the country in a vise-like grip for nearly two decades. At their meeting, Clinton expressed support for Nazarbayev’s bid to head the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, which monitors elections and promotes democracy. That position was sharply at odds with official American foreign policy and came in the face of stinging criticism of Kazakhstan’s record on human rights from many sources, including the junior senator from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton. Within two days, Giustra’s company signed preliminary agreements allowing it to buy into three uranium projects controlled by Kazakhstan’s state-owned uranium agency. And months after that the Clinton Foundation received a $31.3 million donation from Giustra that remained secret until a Giustra representative acknowledged it late last year. (Giustra has separately pledged another $100 million to the foundation...)

“There’s no way in the world that President Clinton didn’t understand what was going on there, and no way in the world that he didn’t understand what his role was supposed to be in that visit: to lay the hands of the former president of the United States on the individual he was traveling with and thereby bring credibility to whatever reason that individual was there for,” says Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, a Washington watchdog group that monitors money and politics. “To deny that is to, basically, take the position that you can fool all of the people all of the time.”

-- Clinton is as faithful as he was when he was in office. The author mentions the following names as probable mistresses: Eleanor Mondale (daughter of the former veep), Belinda Stronach (divorced billionaire auto-heiress), actress Gina Gershon and...

a female friend in Chappaqua, a woman in a bar at a meeting of the Aspen Institute, and a public sighting of Clinton, Bing, and a ravishing entourage in a New York elevator that, a former Clinton aide told me, led a business leader who saw them to say: I don’t know what the guy was doing, but it was so clear that it was just no good.

(F)our former Clinton aides told me that, about 18 months ago, one of the president’s former assistants, who still advises him on political matters, had heard so many complaints about such reports from Clinton supporters around the country that he felt compelled to try to conduct what one of these aides called an “intervention,” because, the aide believed, “Clinton was apparently seeing a lot of women on the road.” The would-be intercessor was rebuffed by people around Clinton... and another aide told me that the effort was not well received by either Bill or Hillary Clinton.

Clinton has become more angry and bitter since his bypass surgery in 2004.

“There’s an anger in him that I find surprising,” one senior aide, who has known and served both Clintons for years, told me this spring. “There seems to be an abiding anger in him, and not just the summer thunderstorms of old. He has been called into question repeatedly by top staff."

Purdum lists some quotes about his behavior during the campaign that I'll condense here:

Tom Daschle said Clinton’s behavior was “not keeping with the image of a former president.”

Robert Reich, called Clinton’s attacks on Obama “ill-tempered and ill-founded.”

Al Sharpton said that it was time for Clinton to just “shut up.”

Gennifer Flowers, who has endorsed Hillary, referred to him as an “idiot husband.”

James E. Clyburn called Clinton’s behavior “bizarre.”

There is little doubt that Clinton’s own intensity has fueled his wife’s. One senior aide told me bluntly that Bill’s anger “has not served her well. That side of him feeds the worst side of Hillary. He does stoke her up.”

The author concludes: "In the end, this is Clinton’s most grievous sin, his steady refusal to take grown-up responsibility for the consequences of his own actions."

Yeah, that and the selling out of American foreign policy interests for $31-$131 million. Too bad it always takes libs so long to see the first hint of what any rational person always knew.