No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for September 15th, 2009

Roll bloat – the Pub is back

by @ 18:34. Filed under The Blog.

James Wigderson, blogger, Cowboys fan (though I don’t hold it against him…much), and columnist, has come back from his summer vacation and opened up a new version of the Wigderson Library and Pub. Welcome back James.

George W. Bush – “There is no (conservative) movement.” Me – “We’re back!”

by @ 18:20. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/Ts – Ed Morrissey and DrewM.)

Byron York retells the following episode from former Bush speechwriter Matt Ladimer’s new book, Speechless: Tales of a White House Survivor in today’s Washington Examiner:

Bush was preparing to give a speech to the annual meeting of the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. The conference is the event of the year for conservative activists; Republican politicians are required to appear and offer their praise of the conservative movement.

Latimer got the assignment to write Bush’s speech. Draft in hand, he and a few other writers met with the president in the Oval Office. Bush was decidedly unenthusiastic.

“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer.

Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC.

Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make.

“Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”…

Now it was Latimer who looked perplexed. Bush tried to explain.

“Look, I know this probably sounds arrogant to say,” the president said, “but I redefined the Republican Party.”

What a seriously-ungrateful fucktard. Without that movement, specifically Free Republic, Al Gore would have successfully stole Florida and thus the Presidency in 2000, and that’s the thanks we get. News flash to Bush – you and the GOP may have co-opted the conservative movement between 2000 and 2006, but as the Year of the Tea Party is proving, we’re back, and we’re mad.

As for the redefinition of the Republican Party, Bush redefined it all right. The only differences of note between the Republicans and the Democrats became the willingness to fight wars and to whom the largesse of the Treasury would be kicked back, which has given rise to the bipartisan Party-In-Government.

Of course, we should have seen the lack of conservatism out of Bush coming a mile away…

  • The first seeds of doubt, mentioned by Ed, came from the compromising nature of Bush’s run as governor of Texas, and specifically his campaign-era “I’m a uniter, not a divider” line.
  • Also from that campaign, and noted by Drew, we got the disaster that is known as “compassionate conservatism”. Folks, you may not want to hear it, but it is not the job of government to guarantee equality or equity of outcome.
  • The 2001 tax cuts were weighted too far toward creating the 50% leech/50% taxpayer ratio that will destroy the country. At least the 2003 version was weighted more toward activities that actually grow the economy.
  • While, at least thus far, the prescription-drug benefit portion of Medicare has come in under budget, its creation was extra-Constitutional.
  • Speaking of extra-Constitutional acts, Bush signed the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Liberal Protection Act.
  • On education, Bush made the same mistake Richard Nixon did with health care – he let Ted Kennedy write the bill, and predictably it expanded the role of and spending by the federal government far beyond the bounds of the Constitution.
  • Speaking of spending, it is not a coincidence that, prior to Barack Obama’s assumption of the office, the deficits under Bush were the highest ever.
  • While Byron mentions that conservatives are pleased with Justice Samuel Alito, his SCOTUS nomination came only after we revolted against Harriet Miers (some of which is in the earliest of the archives of this place).
  • Finally, there’s the subject of bailouts, for which Michelle Malkin deemed the final betrayal a perfect political epitaph – “I’ve abandoned free-market principles to save the free-market system.” Er, no; all it did, especially the loans to GM and Chrysler which became the means to create Government Motors and UAW Motors, was sow the seeds to destroy the free-market system.

The question is, can the conservatives keep up the momentum built since February for another 15 months? Ed Driscoll takes on that question in the current edition of Silicon Graffiti.

Revisions/extensions (10:20 am 9/16/2009) – Related coverage (H/T – Dad29) – Tom Macquire found that Bush didn’t know what TARP was supposed to do either. Brilliance; sheer unadulterated brilliance!

Down in the hole early

by @ 16:33. Filed under Sports.

Once again, I proved that picking NFL games straight-up is easier than taking candy from a baby, but picking against the spread is the hardest thing in the universe. Let’s review the carnage:

Tennessee 10 @ Pittsburgh 13 (-6.5-LOSS) – The Hines Ward fumble as Pittsburgh was headed in for a touchdown was the appropriate start to the season. Oh, did I mention I hate overtime?
Chicago 15 @ Green Bay 21 (-3.5) – Both offensive lines were, in a word, offensive. Fortunately, the Bears’ o-line problems extended to their punt unit. Oh yeah; the under hit too.
Minnesota 34 (-4.5) @ Cleveland 20 – Or at least it was an easy picking.
Detroit 27 @ New Orleans 45 (-13.5) – TIIIIMBEEEEEEERRRRR!!!!!
Miami 7 @ Atlanta 19 (-4) – What did I say about the Wildcat on Thursday?
Kansas City 24 (+13) @ Baltimore 38 – I saw the scores. Now I’m a believer!
Philadelphia 38 @ Carolina 10 (+2.5) – …and boy did that object move.
Denver 12 @ Cincinnati 7 (-4) – It figures that the Game of the Weak would feature the Play of the Week.
New York Jets 24 (+5) @ Houston 7 – The Barking Dog is back, and he is HUNGRY!
Jacksonville 12 (+7-WIN) @ Indianapolis 14 – Mirror, mirror on the wall, what’s the closest rivalry of all?
Dallas 34 (-6) @ Tampa Bay 21 – I may not know my spreads, but I know my overs.
San Francisco 20 @ Arizona 16 (-6) – …but passing to Gore plus the Super Loser Curse equals disaster.
Washington 17 @ New York Giants 23 (-6.5-LOSS) – It’s a good thing the Giants don’t play in New York City; Eli fired the shotgun 18 timees.
St. Louis 0 (+8.5) @ Seattle 28 – I’m sure there’s a couple of high school teams can beat the Lambs.
Buffalo 24 @ New England 25 (-11-LOSS) – That was a collapse of historic proportions from the first and only team to lose 4 Championship Games That Cannot Be Named™ in a row.
San Diego 24 (-9-LOSS) @ Oakland 20 – And then there was one running back worth taking in the first round of a fantasy draft.

That leaves me 7-9 ATS, 13-3 straight-up, and 2-0 on the over/under bonus plays. All in all, not a bad Weak One considering my historical suckitude on this.

Don’t Look Now…

In case you missed it, there was a rather large social gathering in Washington D.C. over the weekend.  If you read about it in the New York Times, there were merely “thousands” of people at the event. If you read about it at an objective source there was something north of 1 million people on and around the mall.

Regardless of the actual number that appeared on the mall, David Axelrod, a senior advisor to President Obama had this to say about the mall denizens:

I don’t think it’s indicative of the nation’s mood,” Axelrod said on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “You know, I don’t think we ought to be distracted by that. My message to them is, they’re wrong.”

David, Robert Gibbs had some advice for you last week and you really should heed it!

Mr. Axelrod, you’re wrong!  In a poll released today from Zogby, it turns out that the majority of America agrees with the Tea Party participants at least on the major issues:

Asked if they agree or disagree that the federal government should require all Americans to purchase health insurance or face a fine — a provision favored by Democrats — 70.2 percent said they disagree, and only 18.5 percent agree. The rest are not sure.

Mr. Axelrod, you’re wrong again:

A resounding 75 percent of respondents said that taxes should not be raised to fund a government-run health insurance program for Americans who do not have health insurance.

Oh, and Mr. Axelrod, you’re wrong again:

The pollsters stated: “President Obama is promoting a new government agency called the ‘Independent Medicare Advisory Council,’ and some people believe this agency should use its powers to deny payment for procedures it deems unnecessary or futile.”

Critics say such power would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship, the pollsters noted, and many consider it a form of healthcare rationing. Nearly 59 percent said they oppose the creation of the council, and just 30.6 percent support it.

May I say, Mr. Axelrod, You’re wrong again:

Some Republicans have called for provisions allowing Americans to purchase health insurance from providers outside their state as an alternative to Obama’s proposed government-supported “public option” insurance plan. Respondents said they favor such provisions by an overwhelming margin, 82.8 percent to 6.9 percent.

And one last time, Mr. Axlerod, you are wrong!

Also, 78.5 percent of those polled believe tort reform is needed to lower the cost of medical malpractice insurance, an issue that Obama has not seriously addressed. And 77.3 percent oppose plans to tax employer-provided healthcare benefits.

Would people like to see some reform, I believe the answer is yes.  however, do people want the reform that the Democrats are offering?  The answer to that is a resounding no!

Stay on target, stay on target!

Hey Dems, What’s Your Problem?

According to House Republicans the Democrats don’t have the votes to pass health care reform out of the House.  You see, the problem is that they lose at least 44 votes if there is a public option included and 57 if it’s not included.  Huh, last I looked there were 256 Democrats in the House.  What happened to the other 155?  Can they not make up their mind?

For you Minnesota readers, I noted that Betty McCollum and Tim Walz are not on either list.

For the rest of you, I noted that the Democrat leadership including Nancy Pelosi, James Clyburn and Steny Hoyer are not on either list.

Is this really so hard?  Either you believe that the government is best capable of running health care or you don’t.  There is no “kind of.”  There is no fractional amount.  You’re either in or not.  It’s pretty simple. 

Folks, if your representative is not on one of these lists, you ought to be asking why they are equivocating.  If they are on the “we must have a public option” list, they can no longer hide as a “blue dog” and should be called out.

The lines are drawn.  Obama risks losing all credibility if he doesn’t get this billed passed out of the House.

Stay on target, Stay on target!

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]