Sunday, October 25, 2009
by increasing the spending on our military, therefore making it stronger, Reagan FORCED the USSR to respond in kind
the USA had the industrial might, just like in WW2, the USSR didn’t
the USA had the government money to back up the orders for new planes, ships, etc-the USSR ran out of money
how long would the Wall have stood if Reagan hadn’t spent the billions on our military?
would Germany still be divided today?
I wonder when will the Gipper be properly honored by having streets named after him?
Thursday, October 15, 2009
1 year in office almost complete and we’ve had the WH turned into a political operation where campaign practices are the norm —you and I and probably other commenters here, have been around past WH Administrations and know that, until Obama, the real lever operators inside any Administration have been the policy wonks and professional managers –not the political hacks left over from the campaign. It’s the latter in Obama’s Camp, 24 x 7. How can you expect bipartisanship when the leadership team lives and breathes partisanship?
Partisanship is rife inside the Oval Office, skip the WH. In the first year we’ve had an attempt to start up a Nixonian Era Enemies List by some of the very people who might have been on the original list and know far, far better than to do something like this… a WH Office of Fishey Comments asking citizens to rat out opponents on the net… and all of these have the fingerprint of our most famous community organizer and Chicago Thug all over ‘em.
Obama could do all the things you ask him to do. On top of that, he could call for a real DOJ probe of vote corruption by ACORN… but he’s going to badly need them in the summer of ‘10 and ‘12, so no hope for change there.
Obama could call for the Congress to adopt tough anti-corruption measures to stop the wheeling and dealing of illegal campaign contributions and bribes that have become the hallmark of a truly successful Democrat legislator these days… but then, Obama will need some of those illegal conduits of cash for his ‘12 campaign, so no hope for change there.
And Obama could do a lot more to make good on his campaign pledge to end partisan bickering… but then, he’d need to lead by example and that’s about as likely as NancyPelosi or JoeBiden skipping a BoToc treatment. It’s not in his character. There should be no hope for change on that score. Sorry.
Monday, October 5, 2009
This is not a partisan game, it’s just a piece of advice. Don’t read here what you want to read here, read the post without assuming it’s a partisan screed.
I mean to be patronizing because you make no effort to understand points I make an effort to make. Maybe this will help you understand the post. And given how much time you spend on the blog while regularly missing the points of our posts, a reading lesson does seem to be in order.
Let’s start with the title. What Barack Obama can learn from Winston Churchill. That signals that it’s about Barack Obama, the incumbent president of the United States and the lessons he could learn from a certain fellow named Churchill who. when he served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, helped bring that nation from the brink of defeat at the hands of the evil Nazis to one of the greatest victories in the history of mankind.Mr. Obama’s recent speech and how he referred to his predecessor in his Afghanistan speech with that word (by dint of the preposition “of” preceding it) in the genitive (or possessive) case. Then, I actually introduce that predecessor with whom you, like your hero Mr. Obama who can do no wrong, are obsessed. Note that word “eschews;” I use it to distinguish Mr. Obama’s attitude for the attitude of Mr. Churchill, the attitude I believe he should emulate. He has alas not adopted one of those qualities which helped make Mr. Churchill great. And I’m indicating that I’m about to show how Mr. Obama is not alone among the members of Administration is playing the blame game.