He voted for McMussolini.
He finds great merit in the crocodile tears Bush shed in his presence over soldiers the former president as good as coffined. Obama’s grim visit to Dover, Delaware, to bear witness to the sad specter of young men carrying the coffins of their fallen comrades—this he find utterly unbelievable.
He “thinks” the “president should give the generals, the commanders on the ground, as many troops as they need to win.”
To insure the estimated 12 million uninsured, he suggests taking “some of the unspent stimulus. We have 85 percent of the stimulus unspent. … For 35 to $40 billion a year, you could insure those people, not $2 trillion, not 1.4.”
Vis-a-vis ObamaCare, he doesn’t know “any Republican who would try to take over one- sixth of the U.S. economy.” Evidently this Oracle had not heard of the Bush Medicare prescription-drug program. It may not have been a sixth of the economy, but George sure began the ball rolling with that behemoth of a bill.
Neither is he familiar with “one Republican who would put forth the — this irresponsible cap-and-trade bill.” How about that hypocrite he voted for? McCain fulminates against Obama’s tax-and-trade, but “in January 2003, the Senators from Arizona, together with Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), “introduced legislation to cap and trade emissions of greenhouse gases.” (While electioneering, McCain suspended this particular plan to sunder the economy.)
I give you the King of Irrational Partisanship, RUSH LIMBAUGH, in a Sunday interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace.
Update I (Nov. 3): From the Comments Section: “When somebody more ‘acceptable’ turns out an effective opposition to the left maybe I’ll get excited about Rush’s shortcomings.”
That’s amazing. Republican’ chest-thumping warfare projects have brought us to this economic disaster. Yet, nothing changes in the mind of the dyed-in-the-wool Republican. Ron Paul exists; vigorously so. I exist. Chuck Baldwin exists. But no matter how often you point out the deep chasms between Republicans, on the one hand, and Constitutionalists, Taft Republicans, and classical liberals, on the other—the same people keep cheering for the blowhards and blonds of the Stupid Party. Face it, people are collectivists who have to belong to a group, no matter how errant it is in its philosophy.
It’s no use, but here’s my two-cents:
Addicted To That Rush
It’s About Federalism, Stupid!
Update II: We’ve had this attempt at a conversation whereby a non-interventionist foreign policy—my own—was mischaracterized for the purpose of discrediting. Constitutional principles aside, the mind boggles at the blind support for the Bush war boondoggles given their miserable failure.
So let me repeat—probably not for the last time—what I wrote here:
“We’ve adjudicated the last 8 years of foreign policy here on BAB in blog posts and in article on IlanaMercer.com. My perspective, which comports with that of Paul, albeit with some differences, has been vindicated. I’m surprised war mongers are unrepentant, and are still plumping for preemptive war against countries that have not aggressed against the US given the lessons of Iraq. I guess when it’s not your kid who’s hobbling around on prostheses or dead, it doesn’t much move the mind, much less the heart. The “isolationism” pejorative is lobbed by neoconservatives when they wish to discredit those of us who believe in fighting just wars only. It’s like pacifist.”
The idea that defending your borders and controlling who enters your country and stays in it are passive is ludicrous. We don’t do any of these basic housekeeping duties; but we level far-away countries and drop dumb bombs on their impoverished neighborhoods. Way to go! How brave! Individuals who still support this moral perversion are twisted sons of bitches.
Oh, there’s another thing ditto heads forbid, so let me break the rule as is my wont. The military most certainly does commit atrocities. Ask Abeer Qasim Hamza. Wait a sec; you can’t, becasue she’s dead, raped first by the American untouchables.