When I see someone on TV who’s particularly grotesque or gormless—and it happens a LOT—I say to the spouse: “Just you see, she/he has a great career ahead.” This applies in spades to “Julio” Osegueda, the MacDonalds worker who asked Obama for … free stuff. What else?
Osegueda shouted mulishly, “Oh, gracious God, thank you so much!“, and ranted like a retard. Obama praised him for his “good communication skills.” The Huffington Post agreed with the president’s sharp-eyed judgment. Sure enough, CNN reported that Osegueda has landed a gig as a broadcaster.
Osegueda is straight out of the masterpiece “Idiocracy,” compulsory viewing if you frequent this blog. But you be the judge. I’ve posted the YouTube below.
The savior’s revival meeting continued with the sad case of Henrietta Hughes. Watch the middle-aged woman in the crowd. Look how she fixes a desperate, lusty, love-struck gaze on Obama and mouths: “I love you Barack,” clutching her bosom and blowing kisses his way. This is sick stuff. If ever Obama is assaulted, it’ll be by one of these sex starved (no doubt), goofy groupies.
“Try as they do to stick to substance (and I mean that in the narrowest sense), any typical exchange between the Obama press pimp and the presstitutes in attendance quickly degenerates as follows:
‘Has he had a cigarette since the coronation? Where did He watch the Super Bowl? Who was invited to His White House Super Bowl bash? How late does He work? What’s He reading? Has the First Dog been named yet? Does He cry? Is there a twinkle in His eye?’
The idolatry continues on cable well after the news conferences have ended:
Huffed Arianna Huffington: ‘Omigod, the Godly One just admitted to screwing up. How different is He from Bush, who stayed the course and took the country over the cliff with him.’ Yada, yada…
Yes, lard is in the air everywhere. But so is love. As all the fawning seems to suggest, when Obama screws you over, it just feels right. After all, he has that certain je ne sais quoi.”
More on the “the president’s $900 billion oink omnibus bill,” and the misconceptions Democrats and Republicans have about it, in “Lard (And Love) Is In The Air.”
That’s the substance of press conferences with BHO’s press pimp. And: Where will He watch the Super Bowl? Who’s invited to His White House Super Bowl Bash? How late does He work? What’s He reading?
Seriously, when Obama screws you over, it just feels right. He has that certain je ne sais quoi.
Indeed, Obama governing means that at last a “moral” man is in charge of deficit and bankruptcy-based spending. We’re safe; someone good has assumed control of the printing press. And what a relief that is. You just know that Obama spending the country into oblivion is vastly different from the Republicans doing the same.
As proof, under Obama’s tutelage, the elites have already formed a new task force to minister to middle-class Americans. It’ll be chaired by Vice President Joe Biden (a millionaire whose charitable giving is a fraction of the much-maligned, middle-class, Palin family). Right there is an example of the new goodness at work, to say nothing of a classic government make-work scheme.
So far, Obama and the Obama Nation demonstrate that their understanding of government’s role is of a piece. And, frankly, not much different to that of the Republicans, who agree with the principle of stimulating in public, but prefer that it not be as vigorous as Obama likes to stimulate.
Only a few weeks back, the Republicans voted for the outgoing thug’s bailout bonanza. Of course, in highly discerning Republican minds–the kind of Ben-Stein discerning–there is a difference between stimulating the financial sector and lavishing stuff on any and all à la Obama. To those of us who want to return the debate to the proper, constitutional role of government, there isn’t.
One thing is manifestly clear: If the Republicans were in power, they’d be doing pretty much what Obama is doing.
Based on the Republican Party’s unimpeachable record as an engine of government growth over the decades, it is quite clear that any show of principles by the Republicans is politically expedient and certainly fleeting.
Come to think of it, in the Republican opposition to the “stimulus” I have yet to discern an abiding principle, except one that reiterates my characterization of them here:
“How much to hand-out; who to hand it to; which hand-out makes the best use of taxpayer money; do the Big Three submit a business plan with their bailout requisitions, or not—that’s the depth of the ‘philosophical’ to-be-or-not-to-be among Republikeynsians.”
said she wants to work “with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with a final stimulus package that will indeed jump-start our economy.” But she worries that not all of the proposed spending — an aide points to a proposal for research on pandemic flu — is appropriate for the stimulus package. “We need to try and achieve the right balance, the right size, and the right mix of tax relief and spending proposals,” Sen. Collins said. “I am not at all certain that we have achieved these goals in this bill.”
It is not that the opposing Republicans don’t approve of the Keynesian model being followed by Obama (and Bush before him); they do. But they’d prefer to find spending programs that are in line with their “values”: faith based initiatives, rather than planned parenting. Again, I don’t detect any fundamental shift in principles among the party that cheered Bush’s bailouts and his stimulus. Correct me of I’m wrong.
Incidentally, even for a commie Keynesian like our Kenyan, this path is not beyond reproach. The Economist makes the following point:
“Mr Bush and the Republicans in Congress repeatedly gave voters goodies without paying for them: tax cuts without tax reform, subsidised prescription drugs without Medicare reform, and so on. Mr Obama must not make the same mistake. His stimulus plans may include cherished giveaways such as tax credits for low-paid workers, expanded unemployment insurance benefits, and investments in alternative energy. [NOT] All have their merits; all will also increase the hole in the books. Despite some earnest waffle about addressing the long-term fiscal challenge, Mr Obama has been short on specifics.”
It’s a chore to watch more than 60 seconds of this hypocrite unveil the carefully qualified Truth he never uttered while campaigning (and will forget if ever his faction is in power again). During his presidential campaign, Fred Thompson, and the rest of the Republican front runners, praised Bush’s three-trillion-dollar war.
Thompson and his ilk had no qualms about W’s warfare-welfare wantonness: his compassionate conservatism they touted endlessly, including Bush’s “ownership society” which amplified the mortgage meltdown. Where was cuddly Fred when,
To achieve his vision, Bush pushed new policies encouraging homeownership, like the “zero-down-payment initiative,” which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment.
Those who still choose to cheer for the GOP (RIP), and saddle Obama with its travesties, might wish to commit to memory (if only fleetingly) the fact that in order to privilege Hispanics (mostly illegal), Bush not only pushed for their amnesty, but worked overtime to incorporate them into the “ownership society.” Easy credit for minorities unworthy of credit was par for the course during the Bush years.
While campaigning, did fuzzy Freddy denounce, or even mention, Bush’s prescription-drug benefit that has added trillions to the Medicare shortfall? The unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime)? The collusion with Kennedy on education?
What is it about establishment Republicans that they will cover up for each other and for the crimes of their Leader for 8 solid years, and are still begged to come back for encores by their followers, none of whom is the wiser? (That’s a rhetorical question).
Why do the party parrots have no curiosity about the one man who has been correct for 30 straight years? Or about the few columns that have been predictive and always spoken truth to power? (Stephen Moore, of the Wall Street Journal, wrote a book titled Bullish on Bush: How the Ownership Society Is Making America Richer. This snake-oil merchant–and failed philosopher kings like him–are still touted as the crème de la crème of the American commentariat.)
Mencken explained this with reference to the genus called “Boobus Americanus,” but then today, in the Age of the Idiot, Mencken himself would be voiceless, unemployed.
Update III (Jan 25): Still fawning over Fred and the Republican phonies? In case you find it hard to believe Bush helped build the ownership society on quicksand, do read about the American Dream Downpayment Act of 2003. Did know-it-all Fred protest that when he had a chance to? Not on his life. He ought to leave “Economics in One Lesson” to the great Henry Hazlitt, who, like Mencken, would be unemployed or underemployed in the Age of the Idiot.
Update IV (Jan. 26): About the convergence of the Demopublican duopoly, Vox Day, my WND colleague, writes:
“[W]hen in power, the differences between the two parties are mostly illusory. Republican and Democrat are simply two different factions of the same ruling party, and their congressional battles are primarily over political spoils, not political ideology. This is why a ‘conservative’ president will immediately tack left upon taking office, while a ‘liberal’ president will tend to move to the right. We’ve seen this with Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43, so there’s no reason to expect a massive difference between the previous administration and the current one.”
As I have written, “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”
I do, however, hope Vox tackles the mindlessness of the parties’ respective followers.
Update V: To Myron. I thought the point I was making was obvious–or has responsibility (as opposed expediency) become such a vague term? The point is not whether Fuzzy Fred was present in the flesh when Bush did what he did; but this: The onus was on FF to articulate the principles he has only now discovered while vying for the Party’s nomination for president. It was THEN that FF ought to have disavowed the violation of these principles by Bush. But Fred denounces spending and cheap credit only now that a Democrat has taken over where Bush left off. It goes without saying that had the Republicans not been dethroned, they’d be doing exactly what the Democrats are doing–stimulating their packages–and their followers would be doing the same. (With one hand held out for their share of the loot.)
