I noted the following off-hand comment in an article in the NYT this morning about Obama: “Sure enough, Mr. Obama, wearing a flag lapel pin for the second day in a row, walked out of the building to the announcement of Mrs. Clinton’s victory and headlines calling it a blowout.”
Finally. Don’t get me wrong, the whole lapel thing is just retarded. Who gives a flying fuck if a candidate wears a lapel pin or not? Does he have to wear American flag underwear in order to be considered sufficiently “patriotic”? But that having been said, why let it become an issue? Who…fucking…cares. Just wear the damn pin. If some voters care, then wear it. What’s the cost? Is the principle of *not* wearing it that important to defend? Is it worth the risk of losing an election over? Wear the friggin’ pin. Wear flag ties. Wear flag shoes. Buy a flag hat. Have a suitcoat made out of the flag. Tattoo the flag on your ass. Small price to pay to become the leader of the free world. We have bigger fish to fry, and I don’t have the stomach to listen to that sawed off little Greek asking about it again and again in the upcoming debates with McCain.
I’ve been pretty pissed with a lot of the bullshit that Jimmie Carville has been spewing of late in his mindless support of Hillary (he is nothing if not, to quote the title of one of his books, a “sticker”), but I was very pleased by something he had to say last night, in conceding that Obama was very likely to be the nominee: “Everybody is going to be with Obama,” Mr. Carville added, referring to the Clinton staff and supporters. “I have an undated check written out for Obama. I’ll send it when this is over.”
Don’t believe the pollsters who tell you that Clinton voters are going to defect to McCain if she doesn’t get the nod. That’s just the frustration and anger of the moment born of their candidate’s loss. At the end of the day, we will all stand shoulder to shoulder to end this eight year nightmare we’ve been living through in order to return sanity to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. (Except for the nudniks who would rather see us launch ourselves right over the cliff, who will vote for that whack job Ralph Nader. “If you won’t love me, NO one can love you!” BANG!)
Remember when John McCain said that he wanted an honest, issues-based campaign, free of any scandalous advertising, push-polling, stuff like that? Well, add another flip-flop to the ever growing list. As of last week, he decided rather than take the high road and not comment about Obama’s pastor when baited, he decided to bite. Specifically, he brought up Rennick’s “comparing the United States Marine Corps with Roman legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our Savior” and saying that “Al Qaeda and the American flag were the same flags.” He also mentioned that “It’s clear who Hamas wants to be the next president of the United States.”
What a classy guy, that McCain.
It’s probable that he’s under some pressure from the GOP to go negative. But that speaks to his character, doesn’t it? I mean, if he’ll cave under pressure from the GOP after initially declaring he’s not going to go dirty, can we trust him to do ANYTHING he says he’ll do on the campaign trail? It doesn’t seem like it.
Oh, and one other thing. When you live in a glass house, you really shouldn’t throw stones. That’s a lesson people usually learn in the third grade. It’s possible that McCain’s memory is a little fuzzy these days, so I’m inclined to cut him some slack on the elementary lessons. However, what I’m not prepared to give him a pass on is the fact that he has now courted two controversial pastors of his own, and has been very proud to declare that they support him for president. There is, of course, the whole deal about John Hagee, who called the Cathoic Church the “Great Whore,” but there is also Reverend Rod Parsley, who has some kind of vendetta against Islam. He also has some tasty words for homosexuals, Planned Parenthood, and the whole concept of the separation of church and state. The question now is, does McCain also support a full war on Islam? He has called Parsley, “a spiritual guide.” So what say you, John McCain? Seems you have two pastors in your “supporters” list who have some pretty hateful things to say about certain groups of people. Do you share those views? Or are you just going to criticize those who support your opponent? Please get back to us on that, because the press certainly doesn’t seem interested in it.
I am loving this latest kerfuffle on the Huffington Post website: Huffington as well as two actors from the West Wing have gone on the record asserting that McCain told them at a party that he had not voted for Bush in 2000. Now, frankly, this would be one reason why I might actually like something that McCain said or did, but he and his campaign are indignantly demanding that the story is false, and that McCain had, “of course,” voted for Bush.
Nice goin’, John! You get handed this perfect opportunity to put a little distance between you and the most disapproved president in our nation’s history, and instead, you give Bush a huge bear hug and tongue kiss to show your fealty and devotion. This is why McCain will lose the general election. Jeremiah Wright may be a world class nudnik, but he hasn’t been directly responsible for the loss of thousands of Americans and trillions of dollars in our frolic and detour in the middle of the fucking desert. On top of all of the other bone-headed bullshit that Mr. Cocaine has perpetrated over the last eight years. Now there’s a guy that you want to loudly declare as your A-hole buddy.
So let’s say you have around fifty-five thousand acres of land that’s pretty much comprised of remote wilderness. There’s a pine forest, large expanses of grassland. It’s a place where the deer and the antelope play. Lots and lots of land that you can’t really do anything with. Times are getting a little tight, so you figure, “Hey — I have an idea. Why don’t I call up Senator John McCain and ask him if I can trade all this wildlife habitat for some juicy federally-owned land that’s all ready for development!? I could make a killing!!”
Folks, it could happen. Particularly if you hire the right people to contact the Senator.
…lobbyists that included McCain’s 1992 Senate campaign manager, two of his former Senate staff members (one of whom has returned as his chief of staff), and an Arizona insider who was a major McCain donor and is now bundling campaign checks.When McCain’s legislation passed in November 2005, the ranch owner gave the job of building as many as 12,000 homes to SunCor Development, a firm in Tempe, Ariz., run by Steven A. Betts, a longtime McCain supporter who has raised more than $100,000 for the presumptive Republican nominee. Betts said he and McCain never discussed the deal.
Of course he never discussed the deal. Of course. No need, right? I mean, if it’s just a land swap, it’s just land-for-land, right? Wrong. Seems as if land near the 55,000 acre parcel sold a few years ago for about $2K an acre. Meanwhile, the federally-owned parcel is getting about $120K an acre. I’m not great at math, but isn’t that the equivalent of an immediate 600% return on investment? So where else can someone get that kind of deal other than from someone in government? It just doesn’t happen.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Senator John McCain. He’ll do anything for a buck. And if you’re particularly pretty and charming, he might even petition the FCC on your behalf.
Gee Exxon, don’t let consumer outrage bother you, OK? I mean, all those people swearing at your logo as they fill up their cars and trucks shouldn’t mean a thing, right? After all, there’s nothing consumers can do about it. You have the drugs, and we need the drugs. Still, it would be nice if you at least put a semblance of PR shine on your drug pusher status.
At a recent presentation in NY, Exxon displayed a chart showing production staying at current levels through 2012. When Deutsche Bank oil analyst Paul Sankey raised his hand and asked why not raise production (as most manufacturers do when their product is in demand), what was the Exxon Chairman’s response? Here’s the answer and interpretation from this article at MSN:
“We don’t start with a volume target and then work backwards,” Tillerson explained. Instead, he said, his team examines the available investment opportunities, figures out what prices they’ll likely get for that output down the road and places its bets accordingly. “It really goes back to what is an acceptable investment return for us,” Tillerson said. In other words, producing more barrels just to ease prices for consumers is not part of the company’s calculations.
Now, I don’t expect corporate America to care about the difficulties of individual Americans, but we don’t have to put up with this kind of dysfunctional relationship either. Oil companies are certainly aware of the gathering storm. On Air America I recently heard their latest PR offensive, meant to reassure us about how healthy it actually was that one company recently generated the largest annual profit known to man on the backs of an increasingly squeezed middle class. It began, “who owns the oil companies? YOU DO! If you have a pension, a 401K, or other investments, chances are you’re reaping the benefits of oil company profits!” So why don’t I feel so much richer right now?