Letterman Top 10: Palin answering machine

Letterman – Gov Palin posts

July 7, 2009

Dave’s intellectual hilarity = McCain, an old doddering fool, Palin, a ditzball one size fits all sex object, George Bush, mandatory.

TOP TEN LIST:

Sarah Palin answering machine

10 – Hi, It’s George W. Bush. Why didn’t anyone tell me resigning was an option?
9 – It’s John McCain — why did I call?
8 – Mark Sanford here. Ever been to Argentina?
7 – I’m calling from Geico to see if you want to renew your dogsled insurance.
6 – It’s Letterman — we still cool?
5 – McCain again. Still no idea why I called.
4 – Hi, it’s the dry cleaner. Having trouble getting caribou blood out of your Prada jacket?
3 – Hi, it’s Sarah…oops…dialed my own number.
2 – Schwarzenegger here. If you want a job, California could use a new governor.
1 – Hey, it’s McCain. Who would’ve thought you’d retire before I did?

Radio Rush vs teleprompter barry

March 4, 2009

Why not? What does Rush Limbaugh have to lose? His party is itching for a fight and General McCain is leading the way. Rightfully so, with 9,000 = 8 BILLION worth of earmarks packed away in documents only the interns are reading.

Who is going to critique the dems for not reading it like they didn’t read the documents on Iraq?

Who is going to use as their own rallying cry in 2012?

RUSH LIMBAUGH:

But I have an idea. If these guys are so impressed with themselves, and if they are so sure of their correctness, why doesn’t President Obama come on my show? We will do a one-on-one debate of ideas and policies. Now, his people in this Politico story, it’s on the record. They’re claiming they wanted me all along. They wanted me to be the focus of attention. So let’s have the debate! I am offering President Obama to come on this program — without staffers, without a teleprompter, without note cards — to debate me on the issues. Let’s talk about free markets versus government control. Let’s talk about nationalizing health care and raising taxes on small business.

Let’s talk about the New Deal versus Reaganomics. Let’s talk about closing Guantanamo Bay, and let’s talk about sending $900 million to Hamas. Let’s talk about illegal immigration and the lawlessness on the borders. Let’s talk about massive deficits and the destroying of opportunities of future generations. Let’s talk about ACORN, community agitators, and the unions that represent the government employees which pour millions of dollars into your campaign, President Obama. Let’s talk about your elimination of school choice for minority students in the District of Columbia. Let’s talk about your efforts to further reduce domestic drilling and refining of oil. Let’s talk about your stock market.

By the way, Mr. President, I want to help. Yesterday you said you looked at the stock market as no different than a tracking poll that goes up and down.

There’s no “up and down” here. We have a plunge.

The president yesterday suggested “we’re getting to the point where profits and earnings ratios are approaching that point where you want to invest.”

Uh, Mr. President? There is no “profits and earnings” ratio. It’s “price and earnings” ratio.

He’s the president of the United States. He doesn’t know anything about the stock market. He’s admitted it before. Let’s talk about it anyway. You want to maintain it’s a tracking poll? I’d love to talk to you about that. Let’s talk about all of these things, Mr. President. Let’s go ahead and have a debate on this show. No limits. Now that your handlers are praising themselves for promoting me as the head of a political party — they think that’s a great thing — then it should be a no-brainer for you to further advance this strategy by debating me on the issues and on the merits, and wipe me out once and for all!

Just come on this program. Let’s have a little debate. You tell me how wrong I am and you can convince the rest of the Americans that don’t agree with you how wrong we all are. You’re a smart guy, Mr. President. You don’t need these hacks to front for you. You’ve debated the best! You’ve debated Hillary Clinton. You’ve debated John Edwards. You’ve debated Joe Biden. You’ve debated Dennis Kucinich. You’ve debated the best out there. You are one of the most gifted public speakers of our age. I would think, Mr. President, you would jump at this opportunity. Don’t send lightweights like Begala and Carville to do your bidding — and forget about the ballerina, Emanuel. He’s got things to do in his office. These people, compared to you, Mr. President, are rhetorical chum.

I would rather have an intelligent, open discussion with you where you lay out your philosophy and policies and I lay out mine — and we can question each other, in a real debate.

[EXACTLY WHAT HILLARY CLINTON AND JOHN MCCAIN WANTED.]

Any time here at the EIB Network studios. If you’re too busy partying or flying around giving speeches and so forth, then send Vice President Biden. I’m sure he would be very capable of articulating your vision for America — and if he won’t work, send Geithner, and we can talk about the tax code. And if that won’t work, go get Bob Rubin. I don’t care. Send whoever you want if you can’t make it. You don’t need to be leaking stories to Politico like this thing that’s published today. You don’t need to have your allies writing op-eds and all the rest.

If you can win at this, then come here and beat me at my own game, and get rid of me once and for all, and show all the people of America that I am wrong.

***

And in the spirit of bipartisanship, uniting the country and that team of rivals crap?

Reality of foreign policy

January 30, 2009

I ran across an interesting article by SIR CHRISTOPHER MEYER (Ambassador to Washington, 1997-2003) about nationalism and ethnic tribalism in today's world. Ethnic tribalism is a good term - especially in regards to the tribes of savages in the Arab world. How it must be faced head on and not with kumbaya barryism.

That is the brilliance of Madame Secretary Clinton - she has no such illusions, is well-educated in the history of warring factions, particularly as regards India/Pakistan/Afghanistan and Israel, and she is reality-based, result-oriented and experience-driven. In other words - her foreign policy experience is more than the "having tea with ambassadors" that the mindless chanters fell for. Add to that her awareness that women will be the ones to bring peace and prosperity to their oppressed lands not the human detonators and hate-filled evildoers.

And contrary to her homeland - in which she was First Lady of Arkansas for 10 years, First Lady of the United States for 8 years, Senator from New York for 8 years, presidential candidate and now Secretary of State - she is well-beloved and respected around the world - as is her husband. It's insane to read that sentence and realize that barry supporters actually said out loud that barry had more political experience. And she is presently more well known and more respected than barry around the world and only time will tell if that changes.

If the American press continues to treat her so inhumanely while she is trying to repair our standing in the world by implementing "barry's" policy, it will show once and for all they are out to destroy her as a woman - a useless cause. Is there a tougher woman, let alone politician, out there? It will prove they have no regard for barry's "judgment". And it will prove their castration anxiety is more important than their futures, their children's futures, our nation's future since it rests on her success.

Does anyone still believe barry has any idea or enough knowledge or experience to actually dictate foreign policy? He picked Biden just to get elected and look what has already happened. It seems he 's just another crazy old uncle who says things barry doesn't agree with. How fortunate it was that wardrobegate was more fascinating than his prediction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

President barry can't even get a stimulus package passed when he has an unheard of approval rating. Perhaps had he spent a little more time in the senate instead of campaigning, or refrained from trashing a true American hero by throwing around "POW Card" and accusations of racism, or actually reached across the aisle instead of proposing it, or had enough respect not to personally attack our former president - a Republican - he might have generated a little more good will. An experienced proven politician would have known that.

Madame Secretary entered the race fully-footed in reality, having visited at least 50 more countries and 2 continents more than barry. But the cult of personality chose an untested politician, a man with no past, a man who did not have the economy in his top three issues as of April 1st 2008,a man who has never made a stand on anything - to be president and commander in chief during an unprecedented time of crisis.

What has he done other than give mini-speeches and answer softly lobs?

He just admitted the reality of the presidency having descended on him. It dawned on him when he went to get his daily press adulation and realized they actually have some idea of how to do their job.And who was it who knew the realities of the presidency going in having lived side by side with it for eight years? Historians are going to wonder what was in the nation's water supply.

Anyway. Here's an excerpt from MEYER's article in the UK Times (highlight added):

Globalisation and interdependence were supposed to have swept aside these ancient feuds and rivalries. Theories of the postmodern state now abound. Tony Blair preached how national interest would be trumped by the spread of "global values". This is self-evident rubbish. For here is the paradox of the modern world. Money, people, culture, business and electronic information cross porous frontiers in ever-increasing volume. But as national boundaries dissolve in cyberspace, so everywhere the sense of nationhood and national interest strengthens.

...It is useless to say that nationalism and ethnic tribalism have no place in the international relations of the 21st century. If anything the spread of Western-style democracy has amplified their appeal and resonance. The supreme fallacy in foreign policy is to take the world as we would wish it to be and not as it actually is.