The speech gets better. Here he describes the separation and distrust that we have fallen into. But he offers no solution. He displays no leadership. But he has gone a little farther than most politicians with an honest description of the situation.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War
Submitted by Jeff Emanuel on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 8:18pm.
Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district. Even his Wikipedia entry says that Kanjorski "usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of his district."
“But [in] the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts - and people ate it up.”
Never one to stand out in a crowd outside of his own district if he could help it up until now, Rep. Kanjorski's public life may be about to change in a major way very, very quickly, and for a very big reason.
You see, Paul Kanjorski has an honesty problem.
More specifically, Paul Kanjorski's problem is that he was publicly honest about the intentional dishonesty of Congressional Democrats (and Democrat candidates) in the run-up to the 2006 election -- particularly with regard to the War in Iraq.
"I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up."
The truth in Mr. Kanjorski's statement is both evident and obvious, and has been )to any who have been paying attention) since the Democrat out-of-Iraq-now campaigns began in early 2006. It has become more obvious with every bill the Democrat-led Congress passed that, rather than ending the war, simply gave the President nearly every single thing he asked for, without putting up any real fight (as opposed to the semifrequent, yet brief, preening-for-the-cameras moments of solely rhetorical dissent).
The impression the Democratic Congress gave during those minor-at-best wars over the continuation of the War was that it was simply incompetent. Reps. Pelosi, Hoyer, et al wanted to end the war as soon as possible -- at least, that's what they kept saying. Unfortunately for those who largely elected them on that basis, the best and brightest Democrats in elective office were simply unable to figure out any way to outsmart and outmaneuver the buffoon in the White House on the issues of wartime budget and policy, instead (inadvertently, I'm sure) ending every fight on the wrong side from their point of view, having yet again given the President every single thing he was asking for.
Now, Rep. Kanjorski has very publicly pulled the curtain back on the Democrat Congress' real intent and objective. "If we won the Congressional elections," he says, "we [implied that we] could stop the war." Yes, they did -- that is why the "Netroots" lined up behind these Democrats with their money and their soapboxes (but more importantly, with their money). That is why the "peace" activist supported them; ending the war NOW was the primary task they took on themselves to carry out, and the promise to do so was the basis on which so many of them were elected or reelected.
Now the mask slips -- and with it comes an admitted level of condescension directed by those Congressional Democrats at those who were gullible enough to support them for something that they themselves knew could not be done.
"Now anybody was a good student of Government," said Kanjorski, "would know that wasn't true [that they "could stop the war"]." Fortunately for those Democrats who campaigned, and were elected, based on their war-ending promises, their hardcore supporters, their activists, and their base of voters, are all made up of people who are, by Mr. Kanjorski's reckoning, very, very poor students of Government.
But all of that was justified to these incumbents and first-time candidates. Taking advantage of poor, uneducated rubes? Abusing trust, and leaving those who offered it stranded along the way? All acceptable -- because, again by Mr. Kanjorski's own description, of "the temptation to want to win back the Congress."
"We sort of stretched the facts," he says. "And people ate it up."
Yes, they did -- and that may well be an apt description of the fate awaiting Rep. Kanjorski himself once his fellow Congressional Democrats find out what secrets he has been publicly admitting.
After all, there is another election coming up in a mere five-plus months -- and they not only need the issue of their continued (purported) attempts to stop the war in order to gain support, but they need the votes of those same poor, poor students of government, who will believe every one of those stretched facts and, in the words of Mr. Kajorski, "eat up" what the Democrats had hoped to offer under the guise of something that was still eminently (and immintently) attainable under a their Congressional (and presidential) leadership.
Now, thanks to Mr. Kanjorski, that cat is out of the bag. He had better hope that those poor students of government are equally poor watchers of YouTube and followers of the news, or else the veneer of the Democrat promises on Iraq will be long gone, courtesy of his honesty problem
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
This is part two of four. There is almost no there there. Unless you find depth in someone blaming his problems on the evil of others and refusing to look critically at himself. This dilute crap is what a bunch of pundits found so marvelous.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Sunday, May 18, 2008
I saw the debate in which he said that. It was the so called YouTube debate. It was kind of a silly moment. The questioner said (this is pretty close, so I'll use quotes), "Will you, personally and without preconditions negotiate with North Korea, Iran and other dictators?" And Barry almost fell over himself saying he would. It was partly funny and partly pathetic. Because implied was, "It's just us Democrats here and we're all really smart and really rational. We're not at all like those moronic Republicans. They use guns, yes, guns and just make the world worse. I can prove it! Just ask that reporter on his knees in front of the Democratic candidate. But, us smart Democrats can make the world perfect with a couple of wise coversations; just ask that reporter when he gets off his knees."
There is a real problem here. And I don't mean the guy from MSNBC. If what you mean bears little relation to what you actually say, people are going to suspect you're a lying con man.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
This strange Dartmouth teacher reminded me of another bit of theatre of the absurd I’d recently seen. There were three Canadian Muslim law school students that I saw in a sort of a debate with Mark Steyn. They are angry that a big magazine in Canada had published some articles about Islam in the modern world that they had found offensive. They had attempted to bring a suit against the magazine to force the magazine to publish an article on the subject that they found acceptable. They sat there for a half hour using terms like “freedom of expression” and “human rights.” But the way they used these terms made it obvious that they had not a clue what they meant. I read some conservatives that said it was difficult to watch since these kids exhibited toxic levels of entitlement. But I think it might be something else. Something that makes them like the Dartmouth teacher.
Basically they are all cargo cultists. I feel fairly sure that they have had little or no education about the genesis and evolution of such concepts as intellectual freedom, tolerance, freedom of expression or the scientific method. They came to this shiny, sparkly place that is the Anglo-American world, saw people having a slip and fall and a lawyer followed by a lifetime of freedom from want. So they said, “Why not me? You have to do what my lawyer says.” Cargo cultists believe that there is a big package coming for them with their name on it that will answer all of their needs. Sometimes a bureaucrat might steal the package from Heaven so these people have taken it a step farther by getting their own bureaucrat.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
I like Bruno Walter because he's a bridge to an earlier world. He studied under Gustave Mahler.
This symphony was originally called the Napoleon Symphony by Beethoven. But when Napoleon turned into a megolomaniac dictator, Beethoven changed the name to Eroica since it had been meant as a description of a hero.
Sorry about the change in conuctors.
The Book of The Obamassiah
The Obamassiah shall reveal himself to us by his teachings, which will be the spoken word in the form of the finest silk and silver.
Do not fear if the words of the Obamassiah are not at first clear, you need only to hear them and believe. Be not afraid if the feeling of a cool breeze runs up one’s leg. Do not fear if the words of his glory remove you from your senses and fainting occurs.
Our savior shall become known to us by the wreath of arugala upon his head and his ears for they shall take the form of the handles of a jug of the finest wine.
rihar on May 9, 2008 at 5:33 PM
n May 9, 2008 at 5:35 PM
The Book of The Obamassiah
The Commandments of the Obamassiah are nine but this is a living document and changes are made as needed.
I. Thou shalt not speak the middle name of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist and it shall not be tolerated.
II. Thou shalt not mention past associations of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For despite any recent or current friendship his holiness may have with them, he was only a child when they ran afoul of the law. Or he missed that sermon.
III. Thou shalt not mention praise of the Obamassiah by murderers and tyrants. To do so exposes thine as a racist, it is a sign that thine has truly lost one’s bearings.
IV. Thou shalt not mention the schooling of the Obamassiah at any point in his existence. To do so exposes thine as a racist.
V. Thou shalt not question the Obamassiah more than eight times. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For the time of his holiness is of a value beyond your own.
VI. Thou shalt not question the past of the Obamassiah family arrival or his birth. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For events in time matter not if they occur differently than his holiness speaks of them. It matters only that you believe.
VII. Thou shalt not question the words of the Obamassiah’s spouse. For if her words mirror those of the past associations of his holiness then thine is a racist twice over for the mention of them. (see II)
VIII. The purveyors of words to the people shall cast only praise on the Obamassiah. To turn from this exposes thine as a racist and a soldier of the unbeliever and thine should be cast out and lose any source of livelihood.
IX. Thou shalt not question the patriotism of the Obamassiah. To do so exposes thine as a racist. For by not displaying any outward love for his land only proves his love for his land.
rihar on May 9, 2008 at 5:35 PM
The Book of the Obamassiah
Those unenlightened to the truth, and the light, and the way of the Obamassiah shall cling to armaments and religions other than that of the Obamassiah and will mistrust his glory for they understand it not.
This is the word of the Obamassiah.
rihar on May 9, 2008 at 5:46 PM
Friday, May 9, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Without thinking about it, I yelled out, "Plagurism." It was probably almost ten years after that before I was able to begin to appreciate Shakespeare.
Later that year Mr. Jenks told me I was recalcitrant. Got me to open a dictionary. I think I experienced a mixture of pride and shame.
When I was in nursing school, I yelled out a correction of Mrs. Brizendine's pronunciation of 'duodenum' from the fourth row. She told me off and read me the riot act. I later learned that she was using a pronunciation common in the Midwest that is as acceptable as the California pronunciation.
Early in my years as a nurse, nurses mixed in the medications in IV fluids after calculation of the proper amount that needed to be added. I was once standing at the nurses' station with three RNs. They each attempted a difficult calculation. They came up with three different answers. So I did the calculation and came up with yet a different answer. I double checked my work. Said, "This is the proper answer." And I walked away because I really didn't want to know what they ended up giving to the patient. As I'm writing this I realize that I had a duty to the patient to do the best I could to see that they got the proper dosage. The patient may have gotten the proper dose but I don't know for sure. I only know that the patient suffered no ill effects.
Monday, May 5, 2008
Tim Russert makes Captain Kangaroo look like a tough questioner. I’d say the man is in the tank for Obama. He asked a few questions about Rev. Wright and it looked that he might close in for some really tough questions but let the whole matter drop when Obama intimated that it was a distraction. Russert seemed afraid to ask the questions that will let America really get to know Obama and his character. Once he had established some of Wright’s more disturbing views and Obama’s awareness of them, Russert did not follow up to find out why Obama would spend twenty years as a regular attendee where such virulent ideas were a commonplace. He did not find out why Obama would give tens of thousands of his own dollars to support such a program if it really was so abhorrent to him. Why would Obama allow his children in their most impressionable years to be subjected to such hate and detachment from reality? And, if you didn’t know what was being said at your church for twenty years, how many years will it take you to figure out what people are saying while you’re in the oval office? Russert declined to ask these questions that would get to the heart of letting us really get to know Obama. They must have edited out the part where Russert fluffed the candidate’s pillows.
This all gets to the heart of what is so suspect about Obama’s campaign. The campaign seems designed to hide who the man is and what he believes. With the exception of the ABC debate, he has never been asked difficult or very revealing questions. Any time there is a line of questions that makes Obama uncomfortable he dismisses it as a distraction. I think distraction is Obama talk for, “I don’t like those questions.” If he can’t handle polite questions from George Stephanopolis and Charlie Gibson why would we imagine he is capable of dealing with real difficulties while president?
It has often been said that the primary system is valuable since it gives the voters a chance to observe how the candidate handles boredom, frustration, difficult situations and situations that they would never allow to happen if they had any control. It gives us an idea of their abilities, weaknesses and temperament. It give us, the voters a chance to get to know them. Some of the main things I know about Obama at this point are that he is not forthcoming, he doesn’t think the voters have the right to get to know who he is, he has a tendency to frequently change his account of events and if people don’t fall in line his surrogates tend to accuse them of racism without any sign of disapproval from Obama himself. He is running an unrepentant race bating organization.
Obama says the American voter doesn’t want distractions. He says they want him to talk about the real issues. So, he had an hour on Meet the Press, how did he do issue wise? He reiterated his intention to remove all American troops from Iraq as quickly as possible. That was as definite as he got. The federal deficit is a big issue, but I guess Obama didn’t want to distract us by talking about it. Medicare and Social Security don’t seem to be of any interest to him. I couldn’t tell from his grappling with issues whether or not he takes global warming seriously or if he might have some strategy for dealing with it. He became a little more concise when he talked about our problem with high gas prices. He wants to spend many billions of dollars on research that he acted convinced would solve the problem thru efficiency and alternative fuel sources. It is sad that he actually believes this crap. Or, maybe, he was just trying to see how stupid his listeners are. Let me see, in 2010 we put 8 billion into research, after all of Harry Reid’s relatives, Pelosi’s husband, the corporations who pay for Ted Steven’s campaign and house, Diane Feinstein’s husband’s corporation and on and on and on . . . When these people all get their cut there will probably be fifteen or twenty dollars left for research. The point is that Obama can’t handle distractions and doesn’t know what to do with nondistractions. And he’s a race baiter. I don’t plan to vote for this guy.
Now, what about the daily kos crazies. They will savage anyone who might ask Obama a question he doesn’t want to face. They don’t seem to understand or respect the democratic process. Their go for the throat attitude looks like the ethos of gang warfare moved onto the internet. I read dk from time to time to help save me from the echo chamber effect. And it can be amusing. I got the impression that for most of them someone has proved something if they can cite a URL to back it up. They seem to believe that the lack of a url equates to lack of proof and lack of evidence. Strange to believe, I think some of them are even college graduates. Well God love’em, as long as they don’t take democracy and reason away from anyone else let them live in their parallel universe.