Because Obama says so!

I've heard, and read, for years liberals harping on about the hole Bush has put us in. Particularly when it came to the war. We know now that all of the recent bailouts of just the past few months will exceed the costs of every war America has ever engaged in . . . combined! OK, with war there's loss of life, destruction, etc. I get it. They're different.

But, why is it seemingly so OK for Obama to put us in such huge, economic debt?

Just because Obama says it's OK?

Obama himself said we need swift action, and a big action to start to undo a problem that took years to develop. But, he went on to say that this is just a small bite of the elephant.

Well, let's take a huge bite. Let's make it 2 trillion dollars. Heck, make it 5 trillion dollars. Why not? It's just "debt". If a little will stimulate the economy a little, then let's go big!

We'll all be dead, anyway. So, will our kids . . . and their kids . . . and their kids. Why not? Just keep the money machines going and pour massive debt on the country. I don't see why not. It's not like we have the money anyway.

So, do it right. I'm not against the stimulus because it's too much. I'm against it because it's not enough.

UPDATE: New reports are coming in that about 78 billion dollars of the bailout have been over paid. Chicken Feed! Besides, what do you expect? We're trying to spend a trillion dollars in a week's time. Mistakes are going to happen. Let's just hope they're all that small.

What did I say?

Dick Morris:

Dear Fellow American,

Now that Barack Obama has won the election, one thing is certain... he will preside over the largest expansion of the government's role in the economy since the 1930s -- with enormous consequences for your investments.
This "New New Deal," as some Democrats are already calling it, may well have the same result as the original one: to turn a sharp, painful recession into a long Depression.

Will that set the stage for a GOP president in 2012 -- the way '70s stagflation under Jimmy Carter set the stage for Ronald Reagan? I doubt it. More likely, Obama will be able to parlay the hard economic times into a second term.

How? The same way FDR did… by blaming everything that happens on his watch on his predecessors. The worse things get, the more the Obamacrats will blame it on "eight years of Republican deregulation, tax cuts and greed," calling for even more government intervention as the solution.

And the media, of course, will back them up.

Lipstick on a Pig

No. I don't think Obama was referring to Sarah Palin as a pig. I also think the media is blowing this waaaay out of proportion, and focusing on things that have little to do with anything.

But . . .

There are a number of ways the point could have been made. A vast number. Obama chose to use the "lipstick" line. While I'm willing to cut him some slack, I just don't think it was very smart to use that particular saying. Didn't he think people would take it as a reference to Sarah? In some way?

Or . . .

Could it be Obama knew full well what he was doing and used it to draw attention to himself? To give himself a stage?

You can put a suit on a panderer, but he's still a panderer.

Sarah Palin's first week

What we "have" on Sarah thus far:

Troopergate (turns out it's legitimate)

Babygate (Lies)

Her pregnant daughter and abstinence (Smear tactic)

DUI her husband received 20 years ago (smear tactic)

Her association with Independent party 20 years ago (Non-issue)

Raised taxes as Mayor (Watching after her city at the time)

"Paper thin" resume (Not compared to Obama)

The vetting process (Reaching)

What am I missing?

Obama:

Jerimiah Wright (known associate)

The Weather Underground (known association with terrorist group)

Voting record on abortion (known)

Rezko dealing (known)

Ties with communist party when younger (known, perhaps not relevant)

Paper thin resume . . . for president. (debatable by some, but no actual executive experience).

Seriously. Which "dirt" is more substantive?

Well, now . . .

From USAToday:

Obama was ahead 47%-44% among registered voters, down from a 6-percentage point lead he had last month. McCain led 49%-45% among likely voters, reversing a 5-point Obama lead among that group. In both cases, the margin of error is +/—4 points.

the whole article is here.

The one thing about NObama's trip . . . the public has a short memory for these things. That and the trip didn't shore up anything for anyone anyway. Except that he's all about the photo op. His not visiting the wounded soldiers will likely have a little more staying power than anything else that came out of the trip . . . which was nothing, really.

There's still plenty of time for NObama to stick is foot in his mouth. . . repeatedly.

Deep election thoughts . . . II

Seems it was not too long ago everyone was all on the "the republican party is falling apart" horse while no one noticed the storm in the distance. Now, McCain is it. Everyone else is virtually gone and many in the party are backing McCain. No controversy here. The dems, on the other hand, have taken their mess and elevated it to chaos status. Between how their delegates are set up, to the new mud slinging that's going on between Shrillary and Obama, to the almost inevitable court action on their nomination, this is fun to watch from the right.

Deep election thoughts . . . by jimi

It's not over, of course, but it seems all but certain that it will be Obama and McCain. Some random thoughts . . . this was supposed to be Hillary's year. She became a senator, waited, and was poised to become President. Particularly after the 2006 elections, it was to be a shoo in. Now it all seems lost.

This has to be a huge blow to her plans and to her ego. If McCain gets in, she could have a chance in another 4 years. But, if Obama gets in, it could be 8 years until she has a real chance again. By then, she will be, particularly because she's a woman, too old. So, this is it. Which is why she has started pulling out all the stops in her campaign. She has little chance, but there is a chance. And as long as there's a chance she will use whatever means necessary to get that nomination.

And what does she do if she loses? Well, she goes back to the senate, of course. But she'll find herself in the position of having to cozy up to the man (if it's Obama) who stole her dreams. Jinkies. That's gotta hurt.

No games . . . just vote

I know there are strategies out there in which to vote. The strongest opinion seems to be to vote for Shrillary even as a republican, to give her whatever edge she can over Obama. Obama is viewed as our worst enemy though our most powerful one. It's thought that Shrillary can be defeated . . . Obamathon cannot.

Well, I can't. First, it would cause me nightmares to draw that line on the ballot. I just can't. More than that, though, whatever power Shrillary has in terms of the "Clinton Machine", I don't want to add to it. She's starting to pull out the concealed weapons, so to speak, to try and muscle her way in for the democratic nomination. I don't trust her. Whatever she can do in the primary, she can do in the general election. She should be very beatable. But, she's not. Plus, McCain is not that electable, though he should be.

Anyway, I'm going to vote for McCain and not play any of the games out there. Back who I believe in and be done with it.