Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Barry O's 100 Day Suck-stravaganza (in Sterophonic 4-D and Puke-O-Vision)

Early on I was impudently chastised for not giving President Obama a chance, as he hasn't been in office a hundred days yet.

Well, it's now been officially a hundred days, and the POTUS will be marking the day with (what else?) a prime-time address. But before he gets to his blather, I get to blather (the reason blogging is...).

So let's get the top ten highlights (because 100 of them is too big a post for me to write), good, bad, and fugly. This is in no particular order and may be both good and bad, with my accompanying posts:

1. The Immaculate Inauguration - It was a cold but happy day that January 20th. There was pomp, circumstance, some great music performed in the Milli Vanilli mode, and an adoring crowd moved by what was a historic day. Then Obama began reading his speech (from the just-inaugurated TOTUS) and it went to hell for anyone remotely conservative listening. But out of that came a big mess in front of the Capitol, which required stimulus money to fix (definitely more on that later). Hell, the perpetual news machine spent hours on Aretha's hat. Thus it's noted.

2. Tale of the TOTUS - Since before the election, Obama's reliance on the teleprompter to give a good speech (without 3 uh's per word) has been the stuff of legends. It has been so much so that the TOTUS even joined us here in the glorious embrace of Blogger: Now I know this isn't that big of an deal. And I know that all presidents in my life have been fed by the 'prompter. But this is one that won't go away until the President stops making those TOTUS-related gaffes (2013 at the earliest). No, this is going to be with us like Bushisms and Clinton blow job jokes. So (on the Clinton note) suck it up if you don't like it because it'll always be there (like luggage (or herpes)).

3. Taunting the Taxman (music by the Beatles) -

Personally, I've lost count of the number of nominees with tax issues that got bumped or nominated. I only know three things. First, when your Treasury secretary has tax problems, it does something to public confidence. Second, damn, that vetting process sucks. And three, maybe I can get a job, although I don't have the bad taxes (just the credit cards and student loans (Woo Hoo!!! I'm set!!!)).

On a related note, there's that lobbyist-free administration he promised. HA!

4. Missiles, Missiles Everywhere - One thing I've learned from fatherhood is that kids will take an idle threat and call your ass on it pronto (which is why the number three often promptly coincides with an ass whipping). In this sense, Kim Jong Il is a demonic bastard child (apologies to the children of Satan). And he (and all the other halfwit dictators out there) are looking for any way to exercise their power. And when the Obama administration said "Don't do it or else," he did it. The "or else" response? "That was bad, we're going to tell nanny UN to tell you you were bad." By the way, that finger raised high at us is not Kimmy's new salute.

5. Red Meat for Moonbats - GITMO's being closed, we're funding embryonic stem cells, etc. I'd get worked up over this, but it's what the people who really worked for him wanted, and he won the damned election. Credit where credit is due here for at least doing some of the things he said he would, whether you agree or disagree.

6. Pounding the Bush (double entendre intended) - Polarization is the mother's milk of politics. If you continually kick someone in the back when they're down, then they're bound to cough up blood eventually. And you can then characterize them as a willing bleeder. And while you expect that in the campaign, it's pretty ridiculous to spend almost every day of your first 100 doing just that. Whether it's the economy, the infrastructure, taxes, the war on terror, or the thermostat presets in the Oval Orifice, I've heard the last 8 years referenced in some way, shape or form in every speech the TOTUS gave the POTUS. Hell, he even ad-libbed it w with fewer um's than usual.

7. Distractions, Distractions Everywhere - Some of the notables in this category (other than Bush):
The exchange with Rush Limbaugh (which mostly benefitted Rush Limbaugh).
AIG bonuses (which of course Geithner knew all about).
The swine flu panic (which of course means he needs a tax-cheating Surgeon General).
Buzzing NYC with Air Force One (Can you say egg on face?).
If a good crisis is too much to waste, a distraction is even better.

8. Tuesdays with Hugo - Obama has been around the world as President. And the gaffe-a-thon continues. Bowing to the king of Saudi Arabia. Michelle Obama's breach of protocol with the Queen of England (who thankfully didn't make an issue of it). And the book exchange with Hugo Chavez. Not to mention sitting and listening to Daniel Ortega rip the US of A a new asshole with that vacant expression because he doesn't have his super-secure Blackberry (aka Porta-TOTUS) yet. Maybe the world will like us better this way.

9. Getting Out of Debt With MORE Debt - It is officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. I have, as unofficially as possible, named it the Bullshit! Package after my favorite exclamation on hearing most of the details of this uber-mega-hella-super-turbo-extreme monstrosity. Now for clarification, it's not 100% evil (as I know at least one fellow blogger who directly benefited from a program that keeps health care between jobs affordable), but like most lesser omnibus-style bills (and they're all lesser in dollar amounts) it's a mix of good, bad, ugly, and patently ridiculous all jumbled together so that no one can possibly know all the crap that our elected "representatives" have crammed in there. .

10. Gone in 60 Votes - With the "defection" of Arlen Specter to the Democrats, Obama now has 59 Democrat votes in the Senate (plus the RINOs Snowe and Collins). It would have been a cruel capstone to have 60, but since it's only a matter of time before Stuart Smalley steals the election in Minnesota, for all intents and purposes Obama and the Democrats will have and will bear 100% of the responsibility for what happens over the next two years. While that may be a bad thing, it's also the opportunity for conservatism to get fired up (think Jimmy Carter). The success and the nature of the tea parties indicate that the natural conservative tendencies of the majority of Americans (who will be conservative by nature no matter how they vote) are awakening again. Now if the GOP can cure their case of headupass syndrome and stop fielding a parade of moronic McCain moderates, This development could be the best thing that happened in these 100 days.

Okay, now on to the speech that the POTUS and TOTUS are hashing out as I write this (8pm on all the news networks and the ancient broadcast networks (except Fox)....


Shaw Kenawe said...

Very funny and mostly partisan skewed take on Mr. Obama's first 100 days.

And more evidence, IMHO, for why more and more Americans are abandoning the Republican Party.

If being conservative were so "natural" to Americans, then Mr. McCain would be president.

You and a lot of your friends willfully ignore the fact that the American people like Mr. Obama, that they feel more confident with him as president than they had felt with Mr. Bush for the last 5 years, that Mr. Obama is respected and liked internationally, and most important, that the conservatives are painfully becoming more and more marginalized.

Young people, Latinos, and most import constituency, independents, reject conservatism as now practiced by the GOP.

It doesn't get any uglier than that.

One way to deal with this stark reality is to fool oneself into thinking a majority of Americans think like you and your fellow conservative/libertarians.

HINT: They don't. America "hearts" Barry.

Yeah Baby!

Toad734 said...

Success of the teaparties?? You do realize that about %.005 of the population participated in that right? Just because Fox News lied about the number of the people at the events doesn't mean they were really there.

Shaw Kenawe said...

BTW, Patrick, I thought you'd enjoy this youtube on great moments in Republican history depicting Republican president shaking hands with AND BOWING to a Big Time Communist Dictator, who was responsible for the deaths of millions and millions of his own people.

You guys are truly juvenile when you squawk about the Chavez handshake and listening to Ortega.

Really. You do need to grow up and accept the fact that US presidents act like statesmen, and not Neanderthals, when they are on the world stage and when they meet unsavory world leaders.

Remember that photo of Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's soft little murderous hand?

I know you do.

Oh, and there's the photo of George W. Bush kissing King Abdullah on his juicy, full regal lips--King Abdullah, you know, the Saudi dictator who represses women?

Yeah, that dictator.

Anonymous said...

Where's the outrage over Bush's Crooks and lairs? And his war-mongering comrades?

I Ain't Got No Blog said...

Daniel Ortega went on a 50-minute anti-American rant, calling Obama "president of an empire." And Obama didn't have the balls to leave the room.

Giving the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown 25 DVDs that don't work in Europe.

The "I've been practicing bowling. I bowled a 129. It was like the Special Olympics or something." remark on the Late Show.

Bowing to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at a G-20 meeting in London.

Oh I forgot.. "It wasn't a bow:. LOL

Firing Rick Wagoner the CEO of General Motors.. Like a dictator.

Anonymous said...

Suck it up, people you lost, we won.
Bush is nothing but a lonely Old Man now.
It's Obama time!

Shaw Kenawe said...


Do you have reading comprehension problems?

Because you don't make sense.

The Red Head said...

Shaw Kenawe said...
Do you have reading comprehension problems? Because you don't make sense."

He/she made sense to me! Maybe YOU have reading comprehension ?

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Lynn, you can say what you want to but I have to tell you that even though you and I are of
(I'm ashamed to say) the same political persuasion, your comments ARE as vile as they can be.. And for you to say anything about being Christian and then use the gutter language that I've seen you use in your comments is a hypocritical as can be.
You are a shameful and bitter poster. And if you weren't as cowardly as you are and had your own blog, I'd tell you so there!!!
So anyone that blasts you for whatever you say is correct in doing so.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: Very funny and mostly partisan skewed take on Mr. Obama's first 100 days.Yeah, that's the point. But I tried to be fair.

And to clarify on the Chavez point. I think he's showing weakness to petty dictators. It may be to disarm them so they can't scream imperialism. That's why I haven't made it a big issue.

Plus, I saw a vid on O'Reilly where Obama seemed (based on body language) to be chewing Hugo's ass. I'm hoping he'll prove to have a spine if and when things go bad on the international stage.

Lynne (and Shaw): I've taken Bush and others on the right to task for stupid things they've done. However, as I noted above, the GOP has NO POWER right now. So I'm going to be critical of those in power.

IAGNB: I knew I'd forget something. The Government Motors takeover was that thing. And that means my Yugo joke ends up in the comments.

Red Head: I can say that I know Shaw doesn't have a reading problem.

It's a Kool-Aid addiction. :)

Matt: I think we all have members of our political leanings that blather on far too angrily. Thanks for smacking one of your own that deserves it.

Arthurstone said...


Seven years, nine months to go.

Doesn't it hurt when your head explodes so often?

Gayle said...

"Puke-O-Vision"? LOL! You do have an expressive vocabulary, Patrick. :)

Why does the left care whether we give Obama a chance or not? He's going to do what Sorros tells him to do and to hell with what we think. As long as Obama apologizes to our enemies for America and pushes socialism down our throats whether we like it or not, no one on earth is going to change my mind about him. Neither does his administration calling our returning veterans a possible terrorist threat, or saying the people at the tea parties are all right-wing extremists help me change my mind.

You sure did cover the issues with this one, Patrick, from missiles to Swine Flu and most things in between.

Gayle said...

Ummm, one thing I must address. Arthur, I understand your wishful thinking, but a President's term is four years. You might wait until after the election in 2012 to gloat about another term that hasn't happened. If the country even survives the next four years, that is.

Patrick M said...

Arthur: I don't know where you get the idea my head keeps exploding. I'm just enjoying the show....

And it's THREE years, nine months to go.

Gayle: I care whether I give Obama a chance or not. I operate under the assumption he's going to hose us, but I reserve actual judgment until he does. That minimizes the requisite frothing at the country going to shit on the Ass Turd Express (more of that expressive vocabulary). :)

My Blog said...

Obama's first 100 days were disastrous.....Obama only said what he needed to say to get elected. Now he has to crap or get off the pot, and he hasn't done either.
You know all the Libs can do is blame Bush, after the Clinton administration made us weak and 9-11 happened did President Bush go on tv and blame Clinton? NO!!! He picked up the pieces and made us safe again and all they can say is that he made us unsafe by his Foreign Polices. So how do you explain no attacks since 9-11 it must be that the Terrorist knew that the Great would be in office soon and gave up. You people have got to be kidding.
"Do as i say not as i do"! And its so true! Obama is not a leader he is a follower! He can not do a speech without a TelePrompter in his face. The man can not speak without because he has no clue whats going on and does not want to show the American people his true image.

Arthurstone said...

Gayle moaned:

'If the country even survives the next four years, that is.'

Oh I think we'll make it Gayle. You will keep your guns. I don't think we'll be rounded up and sent to forced labor camps. I don't think 'Christians' will be persecuted. We won't be taxed into the poorhouse (of course those at the top may have to ante up a bit). We'll likely extricate ourselves from the absurd mess of Iraq. Venezuela won't invade south Florida.

Etc. Etc.


dmarks said...

"First, when your Treasury secretary has tax problems, it does something to public confidence."

It tossed out the idea that Obama would even try to have an ethical administration. And as long as a tax-crook remains in this post, ethics and his cabinet never shall meet.

Arthurstone: "will keep your guns. I don't think we'll be rounded up and sent to forced labor camps."

The only "forced labor" involved now is forced labor unions, as the Dems are still pushing to get rid of the secret ballot in union elections.

The Dems must think that labor unions are really unpopular if they are so afraid of people being able to vote their conscience on them (and of course they have always been afraid of leaving union membership decisions to the workers).

Anonymous said...

The Obama administration continues to make blunder after blunder, apologize then go on their merry way. So we are to believe that the government will be able to improve banks, car makers and health care based on the performance so far?

I`m sorry, I honestly feel that these spoiled brat elitists in the White House need a well deserved beating!

dmarks said...

Toad said: "Success of the teaparties??"

It was much larger than anyone thought it would be, and larger than the "Solidarity with Saddam" so-called peace rallies.

And for those peace rallies, countless opinionists on the Left insisted that it was a major grassroots movement, and that Bush had to "listen" to the protesters.

So, I guess the difference as to whether or not a national protest should be "listened" to is whether or not you like what they are saying?

Arthurstone said...

Despite the enormous number of PSA's on Fox and despite the endless occasions the talking heads on Fox and elsewhere tried to hype the gate, Tea Party 2009 was a bust.

And the next one will be smaller. If they bother.

Likewise I don't remember an anti-war rally with the slogan 'Solidarity with Saddam'.

You're making s**t up again.

dmarks said...

That was never a slogan. I never said it was. But the pre-war peace rallies were right up Saddam Husein's alley. After all, they were protesting to protect his regime. I made nothing up before, and am not again. I think you would know this after the debacle on the Native American stereotypes :)

As for the tea parties being a bust, how can it be so a bust if it was far more successful than anyone thought it would be, and had larger attendance than other national political rally/events of the recent era?

It was also a grassroots effort (especially compared to the ANSWER-controlled "peace" rallies), with the role of Fox being greatly overplayed by critics. I found out about my local one from local media (and this did not include the local Fox News affiliate).

Arthurstone said...

Most everyone I ever met on the left had no use for Saddam Hussein. That came from your side.

dmarks originally typed:

It was much larger than anyone thought it would be, and larger than the "Solidarity with Saddam" so-called peace rallies.

He quickly retreated:

That was never a slogan. I never said it was.

He added:

'It was also a grassroots effort (especially compared to the ANSWER-controlled "peace" rallies), with the role of Fox being greatly overplayed by critics.'


dmarks said...

Thanks for the editorial from the hard-left Media Matters. Next time, try some facts.

"Most everyone I ever met on the left had no use for Saddam Hussein. That came from your side."

The support for Saddam came from the left.Sometimes, at high levels (Dennis Kucinich, for example) As for few you met not supporting Saddam, it is true that very few people marched in the "Solidarity with Saddam" so-called "anti-war" rallies. Fewer even than in the tax protests.

No, I did not backtrack. I had nothing to retreat from. If I had claimed that "Solidary with Saddam" was an official slogan of the rallies, I would have. But I never did. You are making stuff up again :)

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

No, I did not backtrack. I had nothing to retreat from. If I had claimed that "Solidary with Saddam" was an official slogan of the rallies, I would have. But I never did. You are making stuff up again :)

"The primary function of quotation marks is to set off and represent exact language (either spoken or written) that has come from somebody else."

Arthurstone said...

dmarks typed:

The support for Saddam came from the left.Sometimes, at high levels (Dennis Kucinich, for example)

Opposing the US invasion of Iraq isn't the same as supporting the Saddam regime. But I'd be interested in an example.

And here's some interesting material on the latest round of union busting.

Mike's America said...

Patrick: Shame on you for your "partisan" take on things.

Don't you know Socialis Shaw and Artie Fartie are the REAL voice of America?

dmarks said...

That was very interesting material.

Opposing the US retaliating against Saddam, and at the same time opposing any sanctions against Saddam's regime is the same as supporting his regime. Kucinich specifically opposed sanctions any any and all efforts, peaceful or military efforts to limit Saddam's power or hold him accountable for anything. (The sanctions are now regarded by everyone as being the main reason that Saddam Hussein was able to not meet his WMD dreams... .and Kucinich opposed them). With no regrets on his part, Kucinich was probably Saddam's best friend in the Senate.

But back to the so-called peace marches:

Christopher Hitches in "Slate" describes Clark's efforts to go out on a limb to help Saddam Hussein escape justice here:

He also mentions how Clark fights the justification and "rightness" of the Rwanda genocide, the Soviets crushing Hungary in 1956 (Clark heads an old group that heralds the Soviet action as a good thing), and Slobodon Milosevic's multiple holocausts against non-Serbs in the former Yugoslavia. Clark is also a big fan of the famous war criminal Radovan Karadžić, tipping a hat to those who deny that the Bosnia gencide took place (and if it did, the victims deserved it anyway).

What about Clark's own words? In an op-ed in the LA Times, he complained that Saddam Hussein was being "demonized". Interesting words from a man who smiles upon the worst genocides of the generation.

He ended up fighting legal fights on Saddam's behalf, directly working to help Saddam get off the hook for what Clark claimed were justified actions in wiping out Kurds, political prisoners, and others.

What does he have to do with anything? He is the founder of "ANSWER", the group that organized the big protests that I dubbed the "Solidarity with Saddam" marches. I was not aware of how rabidly pro-Saddam the group, through its founder, was, until I did this research just now.


As for US aid to Saddam, it was very minor and brief. It was intended to strengthen Iraq at a time during the wa with Iran when it looked like Iran would entirely take over Iraq. Surely wishing to prevent this conquest was a reasonable geopolitical stance. Nonetheless, the aid was small.

Air force? "In its heyday Saddam's air force boasted Russian MiG-21 and MiG-25 fighters, Sukhoi fighter-bombers, and French Mirage interceptors" (source:, reflecting the actual nations that helped "build Saddam". Nuclear weapons? Saddam's nuclear bomb factory was a specific project of Frenchman Jacques Shirac. WMDs? the Dutch. Just a few of many examples. You will find some US aid there, but it was quite minor and temporary.

Arthurstone said...

I agree with you that Ramsay Clark is an embarrassment (of course he is little threat to anyone holding no office nor position of any consequence) but that in no way minimizes the actions of millions around the world opposed to continued sanctions against Iraq because they were far too damaging to the general population. We can find fanatics in the Bush administration as well. And, worse, they lied to get us into war in Iraq.

Hey Mike!

Lonely over there at Mike's America?

dmarks said...

In the absense of any alternative ideas put forth to contain and limit Saddam's aggression, the ones who called for "no sanctions" reasonably come across as being in Saddam's back pocket (especially leaders of that movement like Clark, who really were in Saddam's back pocket.)

"And, worse, they lied to get us into war in Iraq."

The war was already on, with Saddam's many cease-fire violations and attacks. The Bush administration told the truth about the need to retaliate, and to stop ongoing the terrorism.

But back to the subject: Were any alternatives proposed by the no-sanctions side?

Shaw Kenawe said...

We can always count of Mike to call people names because he has no intellectual ability to argue with them.

Some things never change.

It's been wonderful never looking at his blog. Heh.

Patrick M said...

Shaw: I'm just waiting for the day Mike actually adds something to the conversation in the comment section.