April 16, 2009


For the readers who went to my high school: How many Deadheads did we have at our school? I swear, most days it looked like students were cutting class to follow Phish. I can think of at least three cars that had Grateful Dead-themed license plates, and many more that had dancing bears on them.

And when I wrote my graduation speech and made the joke about Deadheads, our principal read it and said, "Whaaat? The Grateful Dead is popular?" I remember immediately thinking that she was far too out of touch to be a good principal. One walk through our hallways or parking lot would've knocked her over with tie-dye and patchouli, but she was oblivious to a huge trend among her students.

I was reminded of this today when I heard ABC's statement that "The White House says the president is unaware of the tea parties and will hold his own event today."

Wow, seriously? He didn't even know that thousands of citizens were protesting yesterday? Not he didn't care or he didn't think it was significant (guh, neither OK in my book), but he didn't know?

Out of touch, dude. Out of touch.

Posted by Sarah at 06:13 PM | Comments (1096) | TrackBack

March 23, 2009


And the hits just keep coming.

President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela called President Obama “ignorant” on Sunday, saying he has a lot to learn about Latin America.
Mr. Chávez said: “If Obama respects us, we’ll respect him. If Obama tries to keep disrespecting Venezuela, we will confront the North American empire.”

Bwahaha. But I thought the whole world would love us and sing kumbaya once Obama was elected? I thought Obama was a "citizen of the world" who chided us all for not speaking French (even though he can't) and never met a dictator he couldn't sit down and negotiate with?

You mean to tell me that actually Obama doesn't even know that there are different formats for movies throughout the world (something I learned in French class in high school; maybe if he'd taken French, he would've learned it too) and that he can't magically make dictators love us just by kissing their butts?

And his mere fact of existence doesn't change the world into a Garden of Eden?

Say it isn't so.

(Link via David B.)

Posted by Sarah at 09:14 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 21, 2009


When I was in grad school, I volunteered as a scorekeeper for the school's wheelchair basketball team. One of the players was my classmate and friend, and he took me to a practice one day, got me a chair, and taught me the basics.

Wheelchair basketball is really hard.

You try dribbling a ball while pushing a wheelchair with both hands. And while other wheelchairs are crashing into you trying to steal the ball. And then shoot a basket from a seated position, with just your arm strength.

I thought about that when I heard Obama belittled the Special Olympics. Sporting events for people with disabilities is no joke. They are not "sports for people who are bad at sports." Guard Wife is right that disabled bowlers would score way higher than Obama did.

The best quote on this issue came from The Anchoress: "And now, I guess I understand what all the folks on the left used to feel when they claimed the president 'embarrassed' them."

Posted by Sarah at 09:10 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 17, 2009


I am alive, in case you were wondering. I just don't have anything good to say. Rachel Lucas, on the other hand, lays into Obama for suggesting that our wounded warriors be covered by private insurance instead of the VA. The "blow" line was a nice touch.

Posted by Sarah at 10:37 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

March 12, 2009


Here's another example of someone covering for Obama. She worked with him when he was president of the Harvard Law Review, but didn't say anything while he was running for president because she "thought maybe it wasn't fair." But now that he's elected and a disaster, she's on record saying that he's always been this way:

[W]hen he was at the HLR you did get a very distinct sense that he was the kind of guy who much more interested in being the president of the Review, than he was in doing anything as president of the Review.

A lot of the time he quote/unquote "worked from home", which was sort of a shorthand - and people would say it sort of wryly - shorthand for not really doing much. He just wasn't around. Most of the day to day work was carried out by the managing editor of the Review, my predecessor, a great guy called Tom Pirelli whose actually going to be one of the assistant attorney generals now.

He's the one who did most of the day to day work. Barack Obama was nowhere to be seen. Occasionally he would drop in he would talk to people, and then he'd leave again as though his very arrival had been a benediction in and of itself, but not very much got done.

We're boned. We are so boned.

Posted by Sarah at 08:56 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

March 11, 2009


A quote from the State Department:

The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment."

That arrogant, cowboy, unilateralist administration! Don't they care about our allies? Don't they care about diplomacy?

Oh wait, it wasn't Bush?

Bah, forget it then.

Posted by Sarah at 11:45 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


The few people I know who voted for Obama usually specified that his having Warren Buffett backing him up was proof that he would do a great job with the economy. So I am wondering how those same people are reacting to Buffett's rejection of all this stuff Obama is proposing: card check, criticism of corportate jets, cap and trade, etc. I mean, he was so nice and gentle, but even so there are little hints throughout the three-hour interview that his man Obama is messing up:

BECKY: David Paterson, the governor of New York, wrote an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal over the weekend, and he said, "The mortgage plan that the president has proposed is the right one." Do you agree with that?

BUFFETT: Well, I don't even know all the details, but I would say that the administration ought to be willing to listen to very prompt suggestions on ways to make it a little bit better.


BECKY: I feel like I have heard that from the president, that we will stand behind the banking system and it will be here. What can he say more specifically than that?

BUFFETT: I'm not sure he said it quite that way...

This exchange was sure interesting:

BECKY: We have people asking questions about things that the administration has already put out. In fact, Bob wrote in from Baltimore, Bob Knott, who says, "On a scale from one to 10, how would you assess the value to the US economy of President Obama's recently enacted stimulus plan?"

BUFFETT: Oh, well, the stimulus plan's going to take a long time to kick in. I mean, there'll be certain things kick in fast. But the stimulus plan is part of the recovery, but it's not the most--it's important to put it in, but there's other things that need to be done now to restore confidence. You're not going to--you're just not going to see that much happen.

Fantastic. Good thing we rammed that monstrosity through.

Slate has some more shocking quotes from Buffett.

Anyway, I'm just curious. I read the whole thing, and it seems like Buffett truly likes and supports Obama -- but if he calls him "articulate" one more time, I'm gonna lose it -- so he hesitates to flat-out call him on the carpet and tell him that he's making some bad choices. But he hints at it plenty.

Posted by Sarah at 08:34 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

March 05, 2009


David sent me a link called Rattling the Cage: Waiting for Bibi's New Deal:

In other countries, beginning with the US and Europe, a new economic era has begun. Laissez-faire, anti-tax, anti-government capitalism is understood to have failed (it sure as hell didn't prevent this disaster, did it?), and the response has been a turn to the Left. In other countries, it's understood that government has to step in with more liberal, social democratic, Keynesian, New Deal-style policies or the economy is going to sink through the floor.

Not here, though. Here people are scared of losing their jobs, afraid to spend a nickel, their hearts go out to the factory workers who've gotten laid off, they read about how charities that keep hundreds of thousands of poor people afloat are about to go bankrupt, and what is their idea of change, of an Israeli New Deal? Bibi Netanyahu. The world's last reigning (or soon-to-be-reigning) ideological Thatcherite.

The article is not meant to be flattering; the author apparently wants an Obama. But I must say that when I read that intro to the article, I felt jealous of Israel. They get Benjamin Netanyahu and they're complaining about it.

Dude, I will trade you leaders any day of the week.

Our ship has hit a hurricane, and this is our crew, folks. To the poor and the soon-to-be poor: Don't expect a whole lot from the incoming government. The New Deal under Prime Minister Netanyahu looks like it's going to be a copy of the Old Deal under Finance Minister Netanyahu: Every man for himself.

Yes yes yes! Oh wait, that's meant to be a bad thing?

The whole article is about how Netanyahu didn't "solve the ecominy" last time he was in office; it just righted itself eventually. That's meant to be an insult, that Netanyahu didn't do anything. But in my estimation, presidents or prime ministers ought to stay as far away from touching the economy as possible. The free market will eventually right itself, but not if you tinker with it too much.

Our new president is a tinkerer of epic proportions. I'll take their guy over ours whenever they want to trade.

Not to mention that he ain't so bad on the eyes...



Posted by Sarah at 08:02 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

March 03, 2009


I never really bought into the idea that it was better to have Obama as president and be in the vocal opposition than to have RINO McCain in office. I have been scared of irreversible policy changes. And this partnering with the global community, crippling us while helping them, is one of them:

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown will discuss global financial supervision and coordinated measures to support the economy with US President Barack Obama this week.

Brown will become the first European leader to meet the US president on Tuesday, since Obama’s inauguration. “I believe there is no challenge so great or so difficult that it cannot be overcome by US, Britain and the world working together,” Brown wrote in the Sunday Times.

“That is why President Obama and I will discuss this week a global new deal, whose impact can stretch from the villages of Africa to reforming the financial institutions of London and New York, and giving security to the hard-working families in every country.”

Brown said the two countries’ “partnership of purpose” should be directed at fighting the economic downturn as well as terrorism, poverty and disease. Britain is keen to get US support for the bold aims of a G20 summit on April 2.

Every word in this short article makes me shudder.

-- I don't want my country to promise to give security to families in every country.

-- I don't want even more American tax dollars to fight poverty and disease in other countries.

-- I don't want an American New Deal, much less a Global New Deal. Ugh, I can't stand the word global.

Posted by Sarah at 08:34 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 04, 2009


Tom Elia at The New Editor:

At the dawn of the Obama Administration we have witnessed: four high-level appointees blow up over various issues, tax and otherwise (Richardson, Daschel, and Killefer get axed; Geitner stays); the appointment of at least 12 lobbyists to positions in the Administration -- in direct contradiction of campaign promises; a pork-laden economic stimulus bill without precedent in US history; and the reversal of campaign positions concerning controversial policies like rendition.

The first couple of weeks of the Obama Administration has simply reinforced my stated belief that the Obama campaign and subsequent election represents the biggest, most successful political con of my lifetime.

(via Instapundit)

And a hilarious comment from JorgXMcKie:

Democrats remind me of the old story about a baseball player-manager who pulled his right fielder from the game after the right fielder had dropped two fly balls.

The manager put himself in right field, and promptly dropped three fly balls. When he returned to the bench he yelled at the player he had replaced, "See!! You screwed it up so bad nobody can play right field."

I expect to hear this over and over and over and over and over [...] as Obama screws up over and over and over and over and over.


Posted by Sarah at 08:48 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 30, 2009


This Michael Hirsh piece made me laugh out loud:

Is it possible history is repeating itself? As House Republicans defy President Obama over his stimulus package, the party seems to be reverting to form after decades of overreaching ambition and outsized growth; think of the GOP, perhaps, as the Citigroup of politics. Many Republicans seem resigned—even content—to go back to being the party of Barry Goldwater. In other words: We don't care if we're marginalized. In our hearts we know we're right. Never mind that the party suffered terrible defeats in 2008 and 2006, some thoughtful Republicans (mainly on the Senate side, like Lindsay Graham, as well as intellectuals such as David Frum) have been fretting for some time that the GOP base is getting too narrow. These days, you hear little talk of Karl Rove's bigger tent or reinventing conservatism. Quite the opposite: it seems as though the party has decided to go back to basics. The message they're sending: "We don't care if Obama won or that he's popular; let's just wait until the country sees the truth again, as old Barry did. Until then, we'll be happy to be the righteous minority again, proudly willing to go down in flames for our beliefs: government spending never works, and tax cuts always do. Keynesian stimulus is for liberal witch doctors."

I laughed because it just shows such a gross misunderstanding of what it means to be a conservative or Republican, while stating the obvious as if it were some kind of joke. He writes about my entire worldview as if it's something to mock. As if Republicans are the only ones who stick to their guns in the face of opposition. Didn't Democrats do that for the last eight years and get lauded for it? And now we're the ones who won't roll over and die because a Dem got 52% of the vote?

We're not "resigned" to going back to being the Goldwater party; that's where we want to be! And yes, we are willing to "go down in flames for our beliefs," because we do what we think is right, not what is popular.

Actually, I don't think "right" and "popular" are mutually exclusive, but I can't really test that theory because Republicans keep trying to out-Democrat Democrats by granting them too many premises.

The article continues in laughable fashion:

True, Wednesday's unanimous GOP vote against the $819 billion stimulus package was partly driven by the peculiar politics of the Hill. Some House Republicans wanted to send a "message" to Obama, and they may come around and vote for the final bill after the Senate approves its version. But for many Republicans the vote reaffirmed the old philosophical divide. Never mind that Obama reached out, lunched with GOP leaders on the Hill, and pressed Speaker Nancy Pelosi to drop family planning and National Mall renovation. Not a single House Republican could bring himself or herself to vote with the president on a measure to prevent what could become the most serious recession since the 1930s.

Good heavens, how could the Republicans not side with Obama after he took them to lunch? Value systems and deeply held beliefs be damned; Obama invited us out to lunch! And to the SuperBowl! Let's forget everything we stand for and do whatever he says.

But reaching a new consensus would require a reassessment of basic premises, and it appears, at least for the moment, that there will be very little of that. The emerging Republican consensus suggests that Bush grew so unpopular because he strayed from, rather than stood behind, the old GOP verities by creating a vast national-security state and giant deficits. Hence the Republicans are flocking to a proposal by the House Republican Study Committee calling for no new government spending at all, and nothing but tax cuts instead.

Those bastard Republicans. If they'd just become Democrats, the world would live in peace and life would be flowers and sausages for everyone. But nooooo. They have to go and ruin it for everyone by having principles and values and other such nonsense that keeps us from consensus!

Read that first sentence again: "But reaching a new consensus would require a reassessment of basic premises, and it appears, at least for the moment, that there will be very little of that."

Translation: The last eight years, we held our ground. But now you Republicans, you need to reassess your premises. Because they're wrong.

For eight years, dissent was patriotic. Now it's a big travesty.

The laughable piece ends with this:

A little over a week after Obama's inauguration, "stale" political arguments again rule the day. So much for the post-partisan era.

Obama tried to move beyond politics and make everyone on the planet live in harmony and agree. He's tried for a whole ten days! And you jerkwad Republicans won't put aside your differences and become Democrats. If you did, the world would be perfect. But you won't. Obama tried to be post-partisan, and you Republicans ruined it.

I mean, there are just too many things to fisk here. See something you'd like to pounce on? Feel free...

Posted by Sarah at 05:42 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 29, 2009


First, Obama was a hypocrite about bin Laden. Now he's a hypocrite about the environment.

Last year:

We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership.


The capital flew into a bit of a tizzy when, on his first full day in the White House, President Obama was photographed in the Oval Office without his suit jacket. There was, however, a logical explanation: Mr. Obama, who hates the cold, had cranked up the thermostat.

“He’s from Hawaii, O.K.?” said Mr. Obama’s senior adviser, David Axelrod, who occupies the small but strategically located office next door to his boss. “He likes it warm. You could grow orchids in there.”

While looking for the original quote, I realized Ed Morrisey has already blogged about this today, and rightly notes in Heat For Me But Not For Thee:

Many people in America, especially where I live, would like to heat their homes to a comfort level where sweaters and coats become unnecessary. However, Obama and the Democrats want to impose ruinous taxes and penalties on energy production and fuel that produces carbon dioxide — a naturally-occurring element — and make that choice economically unbearable for us.

I wish my house were warm enough to wear summer clothes, but I have to pay my own heating bill, so it's not. Shame on you again, President Obama.

And also, you're from Chicago, not Hawaii. You should be used to cold weather and wearing sweaters.

[Thanks to AirForceWife for angering up my blood this morning with this link.]

Posted by Sarah at 01:10 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

January 22, 2009


Meet the new boss,
same as the old boss.

I may actually have to start watching The Daily Show again...

(via Instapundit)

Posted by Sarah at 09:15 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


Via Conservative Grapevine, Seven reasons for healthy skepticism about Obama. Here's #4:

4. Words, words, words

Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, though starkly different men, both viewed the presidency as pre-eminently a decision-making job. Clinton often waved away speech drafts bloated with lofty language by saying: “Words, words, words.”

Obama seems to have a different view of the presidency. He thinks that the right decisions can be reached by putting reasonable and enlightened people together and reaching a consensus. He believes his job as president is to educate and inspire, largely matters of style.

He knows he is good with words. He knows he has great style. So that’s why he projects exceptional confidence in his ability to do the job.

We don’t know yet how justified Obama is in his self-confidence — or how naive.

But he is almost certain to face many tests, probably imminently, in which the test will be Obama’s ability to act quickly and shrewdly — and not merely describe his actions smoothly or impress people with nuance. And an unlike a governor — who must decide what’s in a budget and what gets cut, or whether a person to be executed at midnight should be spared — Obama has not made many decisions for which the consequences affect more than himself.

Posted by Sarah at 08:20 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

January 21, 2009


Via Amritas, it's Lawrence Auster on yesterday's events, which I did not watch myself:

Today, as reported at the Corner, Brokaw "compared the spirit of this inauguration to the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. " In other words, replacing George W. Bush as president after a regularly scheduled presidential election is the moral equivalent of freeing your country from Communist tyranny.

Jonah Goldberg rightfully titled that post "Oh Come On!"

And another thoughtful comment by Auster:

How would an intellectually consistent race-blind conservative, i.e., a right-liberal, react to the election of the first nonwhite as president? Answer: he wouldn't make a huge deal of it. He would say, "Starting in the 1960s America ceased to place arbitrary obstacles in the way of people because of race, and the election of Obama proves what has been the case in this country for a long time." And that would be it. Going further than that, going into the ecstatic celebration of Obama's presidency, becomes a celebration of Obama BECAUSE he is nonwhite, which contradicts the right-liberal belief that race doesn't matter.

Amen to that. To quote Lileks, "I never thought America wouldn’t elect a Black president." I don't give a rip what the man looks like; I only care what he does.

And he sure hasn't overthrown a regime, Brokaw. You punk.

Posted by Sarah at 02:43 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 18, 2009


I liked Hudnall's farewell to George Bush.

Posted by Sarah at 09:53 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


I know it's not the first time it's been proposed, but I absolutely stand firm against any effort to repeal the 22nd Amendment. And I would've stood firm in 1987 as well when it was proposed during the Reagan presidency. Twice is enough for anyone, even my guy.


Seems I agree wholeheartedly with what William F. Buckley, Jr. (pbuh) said back in 1988:

Two terms is enough for a President. And if we are going to change the Constitution let's have a three-term limit for senators, and a five-term limit for congressmen.

Now there's an amendment idea.

Posted by Sarah at 04:38 PM | Comments (13) | TrackBack


Dear Obama,

You speak with a forked tongue and I will have a hard time typing this letter without resorting to swear words.

We no longer need to kill Bin Laden, claims Barack Obama

All throughout the campaign, you went on and on about how the Republican administration had failed the American people for letting Bin Laden out of their sights. You claimed Iraq was a distraction from the real goal, which was getting Bin Laden in Afghanistan.

In a presidential debate in October, he said: 'We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.'

And now that you've won, before you're even sworn in, you decide that an extremely difficult task, one that George Bush has worked on for seven years and one that you claimed was the most pressing security issue for our country, now all of a sudden it's no big deal since you're at the helm.

You, sir, are a pandering, no-good son of a bitch.

Oops. I swore.

Posted by Sarah at 09:35 AM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

January 16, 2009


I knew that President Bush was an avid reader, but Amritas sent me a link last night to an article Karl Rove wrote about their reading contests.

I'm gonna try to break Bush's 2008 record.

I had already decided to keep a log of what I read this year, prompted by k2sc1's post and also John Hawkins, who reads voraciously. But now I have a goal to work towards and some healthy competition.

You're dead meat, Bush.


Also, you read The Stranger, Mr. President, which is totally slim. I am going to re-read Animal Farm like all those hoopleheads in high school who picked it because, like, it's only 128 pages long.

And that totally counts.

Posted by Sarah at 11:39 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

January 15, 2009


This is Lindsey Graham, speaking about/to Obama:

This president's popularity and the respect that he has earned throughout the world gives America a chance to re-engage not only in the region, but in a way that will in the long term make this job easier, take some pressure off our troops. And that's a compliment to you and the way you have campaigned.

I'm sorry, but what the frick has Obama done to earn respect throughout the world? He hasn't earned squat; he was just automatically given it by nature of being a Democrat and the kind of douchebag who blathers on and on about transnational progressivism. He hasn't earned a damn thing because he's been on the political scene for about five minutes.

Holy hell, I find that annoying. It's one thing to be polite to the office of the presidency; it's a whole nother thing to fawn all over the opposition as if they're so much better than we are.


Posted by Sarah at 12:32 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

January 13, 2009


Hey FbL, I'm starving. No really, I am; is it dinnertime yet? But I'm making chicken with prosciutto and Asiago, so I don't really think we're what the Obama people had in mind. And I don't even like arugula anyway, so they can keep their handouts.

(Seriously, you have to click to hear about the phone call FbL got.)

Posted by Sarah at 04:13 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

December 29, 2008


Michelle Malkin:

Fit Republican president = Selfish, indulgent, creepy fascist.
Fit Democratic president = Disciplined, health-conscious Adonis role model.

Posted by Sarah at 02:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 26, 2008


I never wrote about the shoe thrower, but Maggie's assessment is spot on.

Posted by Sarah at 10:39 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 09, 2008


An interesting election result, via Powerline:

Obama and the Democrats have assembled a "top and bottom coalition." They carried voters with incomes above $200,000, narrowly, and won decisively among those with incomes under $50,000. Middle-income voters split evenly. I find this interesting in the context of Obama's and Biden's constant invocation of the "middle class" in their campaign speeches. Maybe they knew this was the one group they were in danger of not carrying, or maybe they think it helps to talk about the "middle class" even if you're really appealing to upper or lower income voters.

I wish I had read this yesterday; I might've piped up at the Chinese take-out. Heh.

Posted by Sarah at 10:04 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 08, 2008


Overheard tonight at the Chinese take-out: "I voted for Obama. I don't make more than $250,000, so I figured what the hell. It don't affect me none."

And that is why I hate my party. We do a terrible job of explaining how it does indeed affect everyone, even a schlub in line at the take-out. And especially the Chinese lady who owns the chain of take-outs, who says she also voted for Obama.

Posted by Sarah at 06:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

November 07, 2008


Just imagine the squawking we would've heard if Bush had appointed a man who went slasher on a table at a political dinner. Or did even one of the Godfather-esque things in that article. Sigh.

Posted by Sarah at 09:15 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 06, 2008


Ha. When I read this, I couldn't help but think of that Winston Churchill quote: “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart; if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.”

Exit polls show 66 percent of voters ages 18 to 29 preferred Obama and 32 percent preferred McMain. The gap closed among those ages 30 to 44 who preferred Obama 52 percent to McCain’s 46 percent. Among those ages 45 to 64, the vote was fairly evenly split between the candidates. Fifty three percent of voters 65 and older leaned toward McCain, compared to 45 percent who supported Obama.

I remember the moment of wonder a few months ago when I realized I am older than The Youth Vote. Three cheers for growing up!

Incidentally, it may be argued that I never had a heart, even though I have voted for a Democrat or two.

Posted by Sarah at 11:29 AM | Comments (11) | TrackBack


You know, this is just absurd: Oprah celebrates that she saw drug addicts voting for Obama. Hahahha, oh it's a big funny joke, Obama won because the dregs of society stumbled across the street from rehab to vote. Hooray for Obama! Jubilant Junkies Say Yes We Can!

To paraphrase John McCain, I'd rather lose an election than champion the crackhead vote.

(Links courtesy of AWTM and Amritas)

Posted by Sarah at 08:40 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


Obama was elected president, and the stock market plunged.
I hope that's correlation and not causation.

Posted by Sarah at 08:19 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

November 05, 2008


My husband found a funny headline:

Hard choices and challenges follow triumph
Obama ran on platform of change — now he must spell out exactly how


I think it's funny, because what can we do now but laugh? My husband doesn't find the humor in it though.

Husband says:
That second sentence...holy crap...NOW?
Husband says:
why not the last f**king 6 months

I will be very interested to hear the how.

My brother called earlier and was like, "Let me get this straight: You get higher tax rates if you make more than $250,000 but tax cuts at below $200,000, so what happens to the people in between?" And I laughed and said "At one point, Biden said something about $150,000. I have no idea what they're promising." Neither does anyone else. It's all subject to Change™.

It will be funny to watch teh how unfold.

Posted by Sarah at 04:37 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


This man soothes my soul.

I listen to this, and I wish I had been older during his presidency. I wish I had known to cherish him while we had him.

And I hope that somewhere out there is another one just like him. Someone who will be ready to step into the race in 2012.

(Thanks to AWTM for the video. I don't know what she could possibly do to become "a better Friend.")

Posted by Sarah at 02:01 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


A thought from John Hawkins:

* I've had two separate people who have told me that their first reaction to these election results was to buy more guns. Speaking of which, I am toying with the idea of buying a semi-automatic shotgun myself.

When people start thinking that it's much more likely that they're going to need a gun to protect themselves as a result of your election, I think it's a pretty strong vote of "no-confidence" in your leadership abilities.

Have heard the same thing. An impending Obama presidency was the impetus for me to buy the gun I did get, and I figure we will probably buy more.

Posted by Sarah at 12:08 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


I keep having a new feeling every 30 minutes, which means a new blog post. I just re-watched McCain's original campaign ad, and I started to get choked up. When he said, "I owe America more than she has ever owed me," I just got this catch in my heart for him. He deserved to become President, far more than Obama did. I think he sought the office for all the right reasons. I feel sorry for him, and I feel disappointed that 52% of American voters didn't see what seems blatantly obvious to me.

Posted by Sarah at 12:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Every blog post I've read today by every blogger I respect has been a variation on this theme:

North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and associated problems in Pakistan, resurgent Russian militarism... all these are problems too serious to take family beliefs outside the election. Obama's our President now, and is going to need the backing of the public to handle these problems. I see the absolute idiocy some people had regarding Bush and Afghanistan, and after that Iraq, and if things blow up in Obama's face, I don't plan on being "that guy" reveling in glee over problems affecting the military and therefore the Presidency. There's a step beyond "military" and "presidency" and that's "country", and regardless of who I voted for, I don't want the country to be harmed or diminished just because it'll demonstrate the President's ineffectualness. So I wish him well, because the consequences of mishandling any of the above problems are enormous, and any "I told you so's" are going to be faint consolations if they are mishandled. I honestly wish Obama well. Because that means I'm wishing America well.

That's the embodiment of McCain's campaign slogan: Country First.

I am proud of my side today. We are nervous and disappointed, but we are not shrill, we are not shrieking, and we are not rude. Hell, if Chuck Z can be civil and congratulatory towards Obama, then my side is classy.

And I am proud of us, proud to be on a gracious losing side.

Proud to put Country First.

Posted by Sarah at 11:40 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


I slept for nine hours and woke up to find that my cold has subsided some. See, President Obamessiah is already performing miracles.

Ugh, I am such a sore loser. Just ask my husband how I pout when he beats me at Scrabble.

OK, Dems, it's yours. Now how ya gonna act? Because an army of keyboardists will be watching you. It's our turn to piss and moan over everything you do.

John Hawkins says:

I don't envy the task Obama has. He has allowed people to think of him as a messiah who will fix all their problems, a man who will unify the country, a man who will lead America into a post-racial world, a man who will make the whole world love us, and a man who will "change" whatever you personally don't happen to like about America.

That's a tall order for any human being to fill -- and it's aside from the challenges he will be faced with: a recession, enormous deficits, more bailouts, international crises, Al-Qaeda, a deeply cynical public, and numerous interest groups, all of which expect Obama to handle their competing interests immediately.

So, good luck, Obama. Let's hope this works out better than I suspect it will.

And den Beste says it's not the end of the world.

We regroup and recoup.

I'm feeling so absolutely conflicted about this result. I want to agree with Samizdata that "Looking back on this period ten to twenty years from now, the Republicans crying into their beer tonight will be saying 'thank Christ it was not us in office then.'" But, on the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that our country is truly boned. I'm just happy that my husband has a job where he cannot get laid off. We need to get ready for stuff like this:

One guy who runs a welding supply company wrote an article saying his accountant had already run the numbers on the scenario where Obama’s plan is put into use, and they’d have to either expand by 13 employees (unlikely in this economic climate) or cut back by 6 to get under the break point. The owner was having trouble deciding who to let go in that case, then he had a brainstorm. He went out to the employee parking lot and found 8 cars with Obama bumperstickers. He noted who they belonged to and put them at the top of the list.

Obama voters think they're getting a tax cut. Imagine the look on their faces when they get laid off instead.

Kim du Toit gives us a list of the change that's a-comin'.

Hang on to your jockey straps...it's gonna be a hell of a ride.

And as Chuck says in his Why I'm OK With Obama post, "Get to work, people on welfare need your money."


Posted by Sarah at 10:45 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around me
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray...

We don't get fooled again

Posted by Sarah at 12:11 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack


From The Corner:

The Role of Race: It Was Important [Byron York]

The exit polls suggest that race was a factor in a lot of voters' decisions — and that, on balance, it worked to Barack Obama's advantage. In Ohio, for example, six percent of voters said that race was the most important factor in their decision. Among them, Obama won 59-40. Another 13 percent said race was an important factor in their vote, and Obama won among them, 52-46. So nearly one in five voters said race was an important part of their decision, and more of them voted for Obama than McCain.

Beyond that, eight percent said race was a "minor factor" in their decision — and they went for McCain, 56-44. Finally, 71 percent said race played no role at all in their decision — and Obama won among them, 54-45.

I don't want to hear anything about racism anymore. It's a dead issue in the US now. Thank heavens.

History has been made. I agree with Derbyshire though that it's a shame it happened with this guy.

Posted by Sarah at 12:01 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 04, 2008


I thought I was going to spend the night drinking away my worries. Instead I am hopped up on cold meds. My head is foggy, I'm breathing through my mouth, and I feel like I've been put through the wringer.

And I don't understand why they call states for a certain candidate when only 12% of the precincts have reported. That makes no sense to me.


Here's my point: They called NC for Obama with only a handful of precincts reporting. Right now, with 84% reporting, McCain is winning by 10,000 votes. Ridiculous that they called it so early and potentially called it wrong.

Posted by Sarah at 10:46 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Who knows when this thing will be over; I have doubts it will be tonight. Since the end is being pushed back, you may still have time to read this absolutely fascinating, really long post called Toast (via Amritas).

Posted by Sarah at 07:36 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


This makes me snicker:

Petraeus: Commitment to War Effort Will Stand Firm, Regardless of Who Wins Presidency

As Americans went to the polls Tuesday to chose the next president, Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in charge of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, said that whatever the outcome, the U.S. will continue its commitment to battling Al Qaeda.

"Both candidates have been clear about the priority they place [on the war on terror]. So there is truly bipartisan support for [what] I think can be described as a sustained and substantial commitment to Pakistan and Afghanistan," Petraeus told FOX News.

I have heard many times recently, to include this morning, that maybe my husband won't have to deploy next year if Obama is elected. I keep explaining to people that 1) my husband's job deploys regardless of world events and 2) Obama has never said that he is bringing the troops home, only that he will shift them from Iraq to Afghanistan. I don't think any military family should get too excited about an Obama win. I doubt it will mean more time in garrison for the troops.

Posted by Sarah at 05:58 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


Annika reposted this commercial. I had forgotten it, and I wish McCain had continued to run it throughout the campaign.

I don't normally listen to his show, but the other day I heard Sean Hannity say the most perfect thing on the radio. He began his program by saying (I loosely quote), "If you feel nervous, with knots in your stomach, that means that you are alive! Breathe deep and savor it. Let not your heart be troubled."

I can worry about politics today because I live in the greatest country in the world, where few of us have real worries. I have food, clothing, and my health...well, sort of. I came down with a nasty cold yesterday. My husband is safe, my family is fortunate, and my dog is one of the cutest on the planet. The worst thing happening in my life right now is that my presidential candidate might not win. That means my life is good.

I will fret today, and I'm totally doped up on DayQuil, but I will also think about the balls and urns, and hope that there are more red balls than we know about.

Because I have hope. Obama doesn't have a monopoly on it, you know.

Posted by Sarah at 03:46 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

November 03, 2008


Annika didn't keep her promise. Whew.
May there be others like her.

Posted by Sarah at 11:27 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


Cassy Fiano sums it up:

There are problems that need to be addressed during each and every election season. Obviously, we want the person who can best address those problems and issues, but in this particular election, we have a huge disparity between two candidates. One has fought for America and for freedom, and sacrificed five years of his life for it living in a hell hole being tortured daily. He then dedicated the rest of his life to serving his country. There is no doubt that, in John McCain’s heart, he truly loves the United States and would fight to his last breath to defend her. You can disagree with his policies — and I do disagree with some of them — but there is no doubting his allegiance and love for his country. With Barack Obama, he’s led a largely privileged life, going to private schools and eventually Harvard. He got married, entered politics, and a mere 143 days after becoming a US Senator, became the first African-American to run for President on a major party ticket. Yet all he and his wife can do is criticize the United States, paint a picture of gloom and despair, complain about all he feels we’ve done wrong, and smear Americans as racist if they don’t support him. For God’s sake, the man said he wanted to “free us” from the “restraints” of the Constitution, that it was a blind spot and a major flaw. It’s hard to tell if Obama loves his country or not, because there’s a vast difference between loving America for what she is and what she stands for, and loving America for what he thinks she could be if only he could change everything about her. That’s not love of country.

I'm a wreck. I'm gonna be like Tweak from South Park all day tomorrow.

But Varifrank is Steve McQueen. He has predictions too.

Posted by Sarah at 04:18 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

November 02, 2008


I missed early voting, so I still have to go stand in line on Tuesday. And it's a good thing I haven't voted yet, because I still have time to change my mind and vote for Obama. I had no idea that under his presidency I wouldn't have to pay for gas or my mortgage. How awesome life will be for the next four years.

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph...

(Via Cassy Fiano)

Posted by Sarah at 10:07 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 29, 2008



Yesterday I went to the McCain rally. We stood outside for two hours in the cold to get in, and the line was huge. It was pretty fun, clapping and booing and laughing with the crowd. Ours is a swing state, and I hope things go well for us next week. At this point, I don't know what to think.

Sadly, this isn't Ohio: I only get to vote once.

Posted by Sarah at 09:46 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 27, 2008


These are the times that try men's souls.

I have been off the internet for a couple of days, but so much has come out. This Syria thing is huge, and a plot to assassinate Obama. And this 2001 tape of Obama that's out? Whittle says it all:

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

And Dean Barnett died, which makes me sad. I liked him.

My soul is tried these days.

Posted by Sarah at 07:08 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

October 21, 2008


Dear John McCain,

You're crusin' for a bruisin'. Seriously.

We sent your campaign money. And you've spent several dollars of it sending me junk mail every day asking me for more money.

Stop doing that.

All you're doing is making me mad I got on your mailing list. It's not making me want to send you more money.

But I did like the photo of you and Sarah that you sent. It's on the fridge. (And I'm totally going to be Sarah Palin for Halloween.)

Knock it off with the mail. Please.


Posted by Sarah at 01:37 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 19, 2008


I'm catching up on some blogs and came across this hilarious post-debate line by Varifrank:

SO - we no longer ask our Presidential candidates any questions that involve the military?
Three debates and I don't get any answers on these and many other important issues, I get the equivalent of what it feels like to have two used car salesman run back and forth and "ask their manager" if they can get me a "discount on the price for the undercoat" ( an undercoat that I don't want or particularly need, but will be forced to take to get off the car lot with my wits and my wallet mostly intact.)


Also, two tax posts, since I just lurve talking about taxes.
One, from Kim du Toit, on what John McCain should say.
Two, some nuts and bolts on the Obama plan from a The Corner reader.

Posted by Sarah at 09:20 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 15, 2008


John Murtha, classy as ever.

Mr. Murtha said it has taken time for the state's voters embrace a black presidential candidate.

"There's no question Western Pennsylvania is a racist area," said Mr. Murtha, whose district stretches from Johnstown to Washington County. "The older population is more hesitant."

Hogwash. My grandparents live right over the border in small-town Western New York. My 83-year-old grandmother is most likely voting for Obama.

Quit pointing out imaginary racism, Democrats.

Posted by Sarah at 04:17 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


Obama's proposed tax credits:

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

The Tax Foundation estimates that under the Obama plan 63 million Americans, or 44% of all tax filers, would have no income tax liability and most of those would get a check from the IRS each year.

We're so far from the concept of a "safety net" here that it's sickening. And there's more, as The String Beans say:

There's another catch: Because Mr. Obama's tax credits are phased out as incomes rise, they impose a huge "marginal" tax rate increase on low-income workers. The marginal tax rate refers to the rate on the next dollar of income earned. As the nearby chart illustrates, the marginal rate for millions of low- and middle-income workers would spike as they earn more income.

Some families with an income of $40,000 could lose up to 40 cents in vanishing credits for every additional dollar earned from working overtime or taking a new job. As public policy, this is contradictory. The tax credits are sold in the name of "making work pay," but in practice they can be a disincentive to working harder, especially if you're a lower-income couple getting raises of $1,000 or $2,000 a year. One mystery -- among many -- of the McCain campaign is why it has allowed Mr. Obama's 95% illusion to go unanswered.

So both poor and rich people have a "disincentive to working harder" under the Obama tax plan. Boy, that sounds like a winner for the future of America.

(via CG)

Posted by Sarah at 07:50 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


We've all seen the clips of how stupid McCain voters are.
But all Obama voters are genuises, right?

(via Ace)

Posted by Sarah at 07:33 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

October 09, 2008


Ruth H was right in her comment saying that she will have a hard time accepting Obama as her president since there has been so much voter fraud. I too am dumbfounded at the shenanigans that have been uncovered and the general apathy towards it. Rachel Lucas has the scoop.

Posted by Sarah at 06:44 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 08, 2008


I'm concerned about the little things that reveal Obama. Thomas Sowell explains why the little things matter:

Seemingly unrelated things can give important insights into someone's outlook and character. For example, after the Cold War was over, it came out that one of the things that caught the attention of Soviet leaders early on was President Ronald Reagan's breaking of the air traffic controllers' strike.

Why were the Soviets concerned about a purely domestic American issue like an air traffic controllers' strike? Why was their attention not confined to "the real issues" between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Because one of the biggest and realest of all issues is the outlook and character of the President of the United States.

It would be hard to imagine any of Ronald Reagan's predecessors over the previous several decades-- whether Republicans or Democrats-- who would have broken a nationwide strike instead of caving in to the union's demands.

This told the Soviet leaders what Reagan was made of, even before he got up and walked out of the room during negotiations with Mikhail Gorbachev. That too let the Soviet leaders know that they were not dealing with Jimmy Carter any more.

(Found via CG)

Posted by Sarah at 08:53 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

October 07, 2008


8:20PM Obama makes me want a cigarette, and not in that nice afterglow way.

I thought tonight's debate was phenomenally boring. I couldn't tell you at all "which one" I thought won or lost. I think McCain did well in some areas but he didn't wow me, and since I can't stand anything that comes out of Obama's mouth, I am not able to objectively assess his performance.

I can tell you what I thought the most egregious moment of the night was. The candidates were asked whether health care is a "privilege, a right, or a responsibility." McCain said it was a responsibility; Obama said it is a right.

Health care is a right.

Do people have just a completely different understanding of what the word "right" means than I do?

You never have the right to someone else's labor or money. And that's what national health care is. If you cannot afford it, you will need to take money from someone else in society to apply it to your health care.

You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You have the right to free speech, to practice your religion, and to assemble.

As Leonard Peikoff says, you have a "right to action":

Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree.

The scary thing to me is that Obama came right out and enumerated health care as a right, and that no one will call him on it or argue it. It made my jaw drop.

You know, in every debate, they repeat the same talking points. And we can discuss the nitty gritty of policies, and who will give tax cuts to whom, and whether we need a surge in Afghanistan, but I am far more interested in these little revealing statements. I was blown away when Obama said that we're "spending money on tax cuts," and I'm blown away again tonight to hear that he thinks health care is a right. These are the statements that expose a fundamental difference in worldview between Obama and me.

Obama thinks that Americans have the right to other people's earnings. He believes in redistribution of wealth. I find this remarkably frightening, and all of his policies stem from this worldview.

What I don't understand is how people are undecided. I have to imagine that the undecideds are people who just haven't been paying attention, because the difference in worldview between Republicans and Democrats is staggering.

Definitely read Peikoff's Health Care Is Not a Right.


Vodkapundit quips:

7:52PM Obama says McCain’s health care plan will give with one hand and take from the other. Which might well be true. Obama’s plan, however, will give with one hand and… stuff will just appear in it. Really.


7:58PM Obama: Health insurance “is a right.” We our endowed by our Creator with a really sweet no-co-pay plan from Aetna, and maybe some free speech. At least I think that’s what Jefferson wrote.

Posted by Sarah at 11:22 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack


I have been invited to liveblog the debate tonight at Chuck Z's place.

Posted by Sarah at 08:11 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


As we get within a month of the decision, I find myself revisiting Dean Esmay's pledge from 2004.

I tend to hold to a rather odd doctrine myself, which is that partisanship is supposed to stop at the water's edges: we can argue as loudly as we want about domestic policy, but we do our best to speak with one voice once we get past the nation's shores. Old-fashioned and crazy I know, but it's just how I see the world. There was a time in America when if you'd spoken of the Democrat Franklin Roosevelt as a liar, a traitor, and a warmonger during World War II, accused him of engineering the Pearl Harbor attacks, referred to our war over there as "Roosevelt's war" (as a few dipshit Republicans did back then) you might well have gotten yourself a bloody nose even in the most Republican counties in America.

Because debate all you want but, once a decision is made, partisanship should stop at the water's edges. At least so far as I'm concerned.

Now here is my interesting question: I've made myself some friends among conservatives by speaking this way. But I do find myself wondering: how many of you on the right will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November?

I don't want to hear why you think it won't happen. Indulge me: pretend it might. How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"

I'm genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."

That's my pledge. How many of you will take a similar one?

As I face the idea that Barack Obama might become my husband's boss, I wonder if I can uphold the same pledge I made to be respectful to John Kerry. I ought to be able to do it; it's not like Kerry's meeting with the Viet Cong is any less heinous than Obama's relationship with Ayers.

Good heavens, that just gave me pause. Why do the Democrats keep nominating people who consort with the enemies of our country?

Four years removed, I am having a hard time conjuring the gut feelings I had for John Kerry. It feels now like I dislike Obama more than I disliked Kerry back then, but I doubt this is true. Is there really any difference? (Well, the Obamessiah stuff is pretty unsettling.)

I can't promise that if Obama is elected I will like it. However, I will pledge to try to be respectful of the office of the presidency. I can, as MAJ Winters said, "salute the rank, not the man." I will write against Democrat policies, but I pledge that I will never call Obama names or compare him to a chimp, as classless people have done for the last eight years.

But really, it makes me sick to think I might have to do this.

P.S. This pledge in no way prevents me from laughing at stuff like this.

Posted by Sarah at 08:57 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

October 06, 2008


You know, I'm not even comfortable hosting this pile of crap on my site, but it's the only way I can make my point.

Oh no wait, I'll just give you the link to the video.

So what do we have here? Here's like twenty or so liberals telling us to all go vote and that they don't care who we vote for as long as we do it.


You have to be kidding me that any of these celebrities -- who are talking about how important it is to express your views on global warming and health care -- would have done this if they thought for a second that it would encourage you to vote for John McCain.

God, this reminds me of the South Park 2004 election episode:

Kyle: You're doing the right thing, Stan. Don't you feel like you're a part of something now?
Stan: I guess...
Kyle: Look, it may not seem important now, but your vote really does count, and we all have to do our part.
Stan: Okay. [finishes up and seals his ballot, then walks away]
Kyle: Look... wait, what are you doing?
Stan: I'm voting.
Kyle: No, no, you... you wrote down Turd Sandwich.
Stan: Yeah, I know.
Kyle: ...Dude, you're supposed to vote for Giant Douche.
Stan: [annoyed] I thought I was supposed to make my own decision.
Kyle: Well yeah, but not if your decision is for Turd Sandwich! What the hell is wrong with you?!
Stan: Wait a minute, you didn't want me to vote, you wanted me to vote for your guy!
Kyle: Well, I just figured you'd vote for my guy! Whose f*ckin' friend are you?!

If there is a person on that entire video who is voting for John McCain, I'll eat my hat.

Seriously? Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen DeGeneres, Toby McGuire? These are the most obvious liberals out there. Jamie Foxx is wearing a motherscratchin' keffiyeh in this video. Were Susan Sarandon and Jane Fonda too busy to participate?

Celebs like Cameron Diaz tell us that if if we don't vote, rape will become legal, and Whoopi Goldberg thinks John McCain is going to make her a slave...and then a bunch of celebs get together and say "we don't care who you vote for"?

What a freaking joke.

And I am having a really hard time using the word "freaking."

Secondly, I don't "rock the vote." I found this video via Sis B, who encourages everyone to register because "many people have died to secure your right to vote."

If I've learned anything from Neal Boortz, it's that there is no constitutional right to vote.

I hate to be the one to break this to you [...]. But you're all wrong. There is no right to vote, at least not in a federal election..

Oh, it may be true that your state's constitution contains some sort of a guarantee of your right to vote in an election, but that's really as far as it goes.

Now I'm not going to give this entire chapter away right here. I'll just give you enough to whet your appetite for the publication of the book come next Spring.

In December of 2000 a law professor by the name of Michael C. Dorf wrote a column entitled "We Need a Constitutional Right to Vote in Presidential Elections." Professor Dorf, a law professor at Columbia University, by the way, was bitterly upset with the results of the 2000 election and the puddin' storm that erupted in Florida after the vote.

Here: Let me just share one paragraph from Dorf's column. [...] Remember ... this is a learned law professor writing this, not just someone sitting down to write a letter to the editor:

"Amidst the divisiveness of the United States Supreme Court's second foray into the 2000 Presidential election, it is easy to overlook the significance of the Court's earlier, unanimous ruling of December 4, 2000. A close reading of the decision in that case, Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, reveals a clear consensus for what will strike many Americans as an outrageous proposition: there is no constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election. The fact that the state in which you reside even permits you to vote for electors is purely a matter of legislative grace."

So ... there you have it. There's that, and more. I'm not going to give away this entire chapter here, but my research clearly shows that the founding fathers in no way intended to grant a universal right to vote in federal elections in the Constitution. As for the states ... well, it's pretty much up to them. What the Constitution does do, by virtue of the 14th, 15th and 19th Amendments, is set forth some parameters upon which a state cannot limit the voting franchise IF that state decides to offer a right to vote in its state constitution. In other words, a state can't formulate a constitution which says you can vote in a state or local election unless you're black, or a woman, etc. The same rule would apply to any federal elections as well.

I have learned to check myself and never let the phrase "right to vote" pass my lips. And everything changes when you look at it through this lens. I also agree with Neal Boortz that voting should be linked to taxes. He has an elaborate theory on this that goes something like this (and I hope I do right by him, this is all from memory): If you don't pay taxes, or you actually have a net gain via welfare or Earned Income Credit, then you don't get to vote. If you pay under $25,000 in taxes, you get one vote; under $50,000, two votes; and so on, maxing out at five votes for the wealthiest of Americans (so Bill Gates can't just control the country all on his own).

If you don't pay into the system, then you have no dog in this fight. You shouldn't be allowed to use your vote to get more of other people's stuff. It's the wealthy who make this country what it is, and they should get more of a say in how it is run. I realize that is probably an unpopular position, but Neal Boortz has completely won me over to its merits.

But since the system doesn't work that way, and any goofball off the street can have a say, I don't encourage people to vote. If they're not motivated enough on their own to register to have a say in who controls the purse strings of this country, then I'm not gonna give them a push. Because I don't want unmotivated people to vote.

If you sit down and research the issues, watch the debates, and learn about the policies, and then you decide to vote for Barack Obama, I can live with that. But if you go out and vote because some idiot celebrity like DiCaprio tells you it's important to voice your opinion on the financial crisis...well, that makes me want to puke.

Posted by Sarah at 05:17 PM | Comments (21) | TrackBack

October 03, 2008


Best comment I've seen so far about the debate:

Buford Gooch: CNN and ABC already had focus groups of “uncommitted” voters saying it was Biden by a landslide. I think too many of them mistook “uncommitted to candidate” for “uncommitted to an asylum”.

And am I the only one who had a problem with this answer to which long-held view Biden has changed?

BIDEN: Yes, I can. When I got to the United States Senate and went on the Judiciary Committee as a young lawyer, I was of the view and had been trained in the view that the only thing that mattered was whether or not a nominee appointed, suggested by the president had a judicial temperament, had not committed a crime of moral turpitude, and was -- had been a good student.

And it didn't take me long -- it was hard to change, but it didn't take me long, but it took about five years for me to realize that the ideology of that judge makes a big difference.

That's why I led the fight against Judge Bork. Had he been on the court, I suspect there would be a lot of changes that I don't like and the American people wouldn't like, including everything from Roe v. Wade to issues relating to civil rights and civil liberties.

I think Biden got this exactly backwards. Judges are not supposed to rule based on ideology; they rule based on constitutionality. No one else seems to be talking about this one, so maybe I am overreacting. But it simply doesn't matter what changes Biden would or would not like to see. The only thing that matters is what the Constitution says. It just seems to me that this is a gross misunderstanding of the judicial system.

Of course, he didn't do so hot on the legislative branch either.

Posted by Sarah at 05:37 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

October 02, 2008


Some may say that it was the shot of HCG, but I beg to differ.
I think Sarah Palin made me ovulate.

More tomorrow, but hellz yeah.

Posted by Sarah at 10:45 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


From The Corner:

I just watched the Palin-Couric Supreme Court exchange. It strikes me that Palin's critics and defenders are both right. The Supreme Court question was a bit "pop quiz." What was trying to be gleaned here? Palin is not a lawyer or Supreme Court historian. But she could have said that, and then elaborated on her judicial philosophy. She could have discussed how court rulings have influenced policy she's had to carry out as governor, for example. But that on-camera confidence takes practice to acquire. And in the beginning, its really hard.

I heard the exchange too, and I knew exactly what Sarah Palin was doing. She was searching her brain for the right answer, the best answer. I know because I do it too, every time I sit on a panel at SpouseBUZZ or the Milblogs Conference. My body tenses when a question is directed at me and all I can think in my brain is "Don't say something dumb, please let me know the answer." And my moderators aren't out to get me!

In Las Vegas last week, Guard Wife asked me which SpouseBUZZ posts get the most comments. I got a deer-in-headlights look on my face and wracked my brain as quickly as I could to come up with what I thought was the right answer, the factually correct answer. I wanted to answer the question well.

The politician's trick though is to just open your mouth and start saying whatever is tangentially related to the question you've been asked to steer the conversation to what you want to talk about.

Sarah Palin apparently hasn't mastered that trick. But I don't really see why that is a bad thing.

If someone asks her which Supreme Court decision she doesn't like, I want her to really search her brain and come up with one. I don't want her to just start flapping her gums around the question.

Here's what happened at the beginning of the first presidential debate:

LEHRER: Gentlemen, at this very moment tonight, where do you stand on the financial recovery plan?

First response to you, Senator Obama. You have two minutes.

OBAMA: Well, thank you very much, Jim, and thanks to the commission and the University of Mississippi, "Ole Miss," for hosting us tonight. I can't think of a more important time for us to talk about the future of the country.

You know, we are at a defining moment in our history. Our nation is involved in two wars, and we are going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

And although we've heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.

And you're wondering, how's it going to affect me? How's it going to affect my job? How's it going to affect my house? How's it going to affect my retirement savings or my ability to send my children to college?

So we have to move swiftly, and we have to move wisely. And I've put forward a series of proposals that make sure that we protect taxpayers as we engage in this important rescue effort.

So he spent at least a minute in a two-minute answer saying absolutely nothing. And then McCain does the same baloney, and then Lehrer has to come back and re-ask both the candidates to answer the fricking question. That's how politics works. You do everything you can not to answer the question.

Sarah Palin hasn't figured that out yet. That's why some of us are OK with her.

Posted by Sarah at 03:18 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

September 28, 2008


First, Peter Kirsanow at The Corner on Obama's final thoughts about what a crappy country the US is.

Second, apparently the family of the soldier whose bracelet Obama wears asked him to stop wearing it. Ouch.

Posted by Sarah at 12:35 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack


I'm going to let you in on a little secret: I'm not black. Heh. So this kind of stuff weirds me out.

What If Obama Loses?
African-Americans thought he had no chance—then they started to believe. Now they fear defeat.

"The conversation had to change to 'How do we change our futures now that we have someone who might actually care about us in the race?'

So no other president cares about black people. Man, I didn't know Kanye was taken as gospel. Newsflash: the policies that are good for "American" people are good for all people.

The quotes in this article are just depressing to me:

"I've never forgotten that he is a smart, articulate black man with a smart, articulate black wife," says Linda Wright, 34, a nurse's assistant from Houston. "You think white people were just going to turn over the keys to the most important job in the land without a fight?"

"I'm going to be mad, real mad, if he doesn't win," says Daetwon Fisher, 21, a construction worker from Long Beach, Calif. "Because for him to come this far and lose will be just shady and a slap in black people's faces. I know there is already talk about protests and stuff if he loses, and I'm down for that."

Fisher's comment about something vaguely "shady" echoes a common concern that the election will somehow be stolen rather than won. "I know a lot of things can stop Obama from winning, and it's not just lack of votes," says Marilyn Higgins, 36, a mail carrier from Detroit.

I've never thought these things about Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin for being women. Never. I wouldn't have voted for Hillary Clinton even if she was my aunt because of her policies. Gender sure isn't going to sway me.

The comments on the article are interesting and varied. But here's one that confuses, like I wrote a while back, opportunity with results:

Comment: What most white people don't seem to understand is that this country has always said to the world that anybody can be president in the United States, yet the majority of Americans have proven that they don't truly believe that by the way they've voted all through this country's history. This country is made up of people whose ancestry originated from every corner of the globe, yet it's history of presidents has yet to reflect that. How can you go spouting to the world that you're the land of opportunity for everyone and wanting to import your way of life to the entire world when you are illustrating that only white, mostly rich men are allowed to have all of the opportunities.

Translation: How dare you say anyone can be president and then vote for the person you think is best suited instead of the person who matches your color/gender/hometown? I love that last bit: "allowed to have all the opportunities." That seems a gross misunderstanding of the word "opportunity."

I too am nervous that my candidate might not win. It has nothing to do with what color he is. But I won't be out protesting if he loses.

This stuff doesn't make sense to me.

Posted by Sarah at 10:03 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 27, 2008


I blogged about this last week, but I wasn't good and mad about it yet. Vodkapundit's liveblogging reminded me of the most egregious thing Obama said during the debate:

The only point I want to make is this, that in order to make the tough decisions we have to know what our values are and who we're fighting for and our priorities and if we are spending $300 billion on tax cuts for people who don't need them and weren't even asking for them, and we are leaving out health care which is crushing on people all across the country, then I think we have made a bad decision and I want to make sure we're not shortchanging our long term priorities.

Let me also put this in bold so you don't miss it: The government doesn't spend money on tax cuts; they let you keep your own effing money. Money that is yours, that you worked for, and that simply stays in your pocket instead of being whisked away to government.

Spending money on a tax cut. Obama talks like tax revenue belongs to the government and they decide whether to give us some or not! Apparently Obama gets to decide how much of our income we "need," and if we don't specifically "ask" for it back, well, it's government's to keep.

Which brings us, as usual, to The Parable of the Stairs, which is Lileks' finest work after Notes From the Olive Garden. I am copying it here, and I hope Lileks doesn't mind. I'll put in a plug for his books as compensation: go buy one!

A minor political note, if you’re interested in such things. The other day a young girl came to the door to solicit my support for her presidential candidate. I asked her why I should vote for this man. She was very nice and earnest, but if you got her off the talking points she was utterly unprepared to argue anything, because she didn’t know what she was talking about. She had bullet points, and she believed that any reasonable person would see the importance of these issues and naturally fall in line. But she could not support any of her assertions. Her final selling point: Kerry would roll back the tax cuts.

Then came the Parable of the Stairs, of course. My tiresome, shopworn, oft-told tale, a piece of unsupportable meaningless anecdotal drivel about how I turned my tax cut into a nice staircase that replaced a crumbling eyesore, hired a few people and injected money far and wide - from the guys who demolished the old stairs, the guys who built the new one, the family firm that sold the stone, the other firm that rented the Bobcats, the entrepreneur who fabricated the railings in his garage, and the guy who did the landscaping. Also the company that sold him the plants. And the light fixtures. It’s called economic activity. What’s more, home improvements added to the value of this pile, which mean that my assessment would increase, bumping up my property taxes. To say nothing of the general beautification of the neighborhood. Next year, if my taxes didn’t shoot up, I had another project planned. Raise my taxes, and it won’t happen – I won’t hire anyone, and they won’t hire anyone, rent anything, buy anything. You see?

“Well, it’s a philosophical difference,” she sniffed. She had pegged me as a form of life last seen clicking the leash off a dog at Abu Ghraib. “I think the money should have gone straight to those people instead of trickling down.” Those last two words were said with an edge.

“But then I wouldn’t have hired them,” I said. “I wouldn’t have new steps. And they wouldn’t have done anything to get the money.”

“Well, what did you do?” she snapped.

“What do you mean?”

“Why should the government have given you the money in the first place?”

“They didn’t give it to me. They just took less of my money.”

That was the last straw. Now she was angry. And the truth came out:

“Well, why is it your money? I think it should be their money.”

Then she left.

And walked down the stairs. I let her go without charging a toll. It’s the philanthropist in me.

And that, my friends, was the exact same mindset that Obama showed last night. He sees tax revenue as his money to play with as he will. He doesn't think of it as our money.

So what I want to know is this: If some housewife knitting a sock could catch Obama saying this, why didn't McCain catch it? Why didn't he slam Obama from here to kingdom come on it? He needs to do this soon. Obama gets to prance around with his pretty little "95% of you are getting a tax cut" and he needs to be taken down a peg. McCain needs to point out that those 5% who are getting a tax increase already pay 60% of the taxes our country takes in. They don't deserve to get screwed even harder. And that screwing them even harder means life will be worse for all of us in the US.

But god forbid some person making $40,000 per year doesn't get to take home a few more dollars under an Obama presidency. Remember when that blogger said why she's not a Republican, that she eschewed the libertarian right's "'I got mine' attitude"? Well, there's the flip side, there's your Democrat "I got mine" right there. Am I one of the 95% who gets a tax cut? Well, then here's a middle finger to the top 5%. I got my tax cut, so I'm voting for Obama.

Nevermind that the top 5% of earners are what keep this country afloat and make earning possible for all the rest of us. Nevermind that if the government takes more of their money out of their pockets, they simply won't provide us with more jobs and more robustness in the economy. They won't build any stairs for us to profit from.

It can't go "straight to those people instead of trickling down," you stupid little girl.

And Obama is high if he thinks he can fix the problems the US faces with taxes on the already-overtaxed rich. He just can't. Last week I watched Glenn Beck's "Exposed: America's Broke" series. I recommend it if you want to be depressed. Forgive the screenshot taken from the first installment, but I can't get this out of my head:


We have two serious problems facing us in the future named Social Security and Medicare. What Glenn Beck noted is that spending is projected to go through the roof, but the history of revenues is pretty stable. Under both the most oppressive and the most generous tax rates we've ever had, revenues have stayed roughly around 18% of GDP. When we start doling out social security and Medicare to baby boomers, there's no way to make up the difference in money we need from taxes.

And the Democrats think it's even remotely possible to add national health care to our burden of spending?

Obama cannot tax away our problems, and McCain needs to start calling him on it. If he and Palin really want to be Mavericks, they need to reform Social Security and Medicare, which are a far bigger burden on the US than earmarks. But at the very least they need to stop letting Obama get away with acting like cutting middle class taxes is important for the economy. We need to cut taxes for high earners and businesses first.

And for heaven's sake, I want Obama socked in the gut the next time he calls tax cuts "spending."

Here's what Vodkapundit said:

7:36PM “Spending 300 billion dollars on tax cuts.” That right there explains why I haven’t voted for a Democrat for President since 1992, and would rather not until they beat that sentiment out of themselves. Preferably using ball-peen hammers.

Roger that.

Posted by Sarah at 03:47 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack


It didn't go as well as I'd hoped.

The first thing that Obama said made me want to throw something at the TV. I cannot stand it when people say that we are fighting two wars. We absolutely are not; we are fighting one war on two fronts. That is a pet peeve of mine that makes me want to tear my hair out when I hear it.

And I didn't fare much better throughout the rest of the debate.

Part of it was this:

Repetition may bore political junkies, but it helps candidates connect with casual voters--as do memorable (if corny) anecdotes.

I didn't learn anything new during the debate, and I thought often I came up with a better argument than McCain did. Though my arguments were decidedly less PC and probably couldn't be repeated on TV without redacting several swear words.

I thought Obama looked better, and since I have no faith in the competence of American voters, I fully expect them to vote for who looks better, so I am disappointed in the debate.

But I did enjoy Obama's closing remarks about how his Kenyan father wouldn't dream of setting foot in 2008 America and would've rather emigrated to France or somewhere less unilateral. That plays real well, so keep that up please, Obama.

But other people around teh internets aren't as pessimistic as I am, so maybe it wasn't that bad.


Read what Varifrank says about RISK.

Also, I love this paragraph of his that he wrote before the debate:

I dont care if McCain walks out begins to channel the ghost of Jim Morrison, drops his pants and takes a big whizz on stage shouts "I AM THE LIZARD KING!!!,because even if he did do that, I'm still voting for him. Quite frankly, if he does do that, I will probably send his campaign money. If he also turns around smacks Jim Lerher to the ground and calls him "a commie punk", I'll fly to Manahttan and wear a "MCCAIN FOR PRESIDENT" sandwich board in Times Square and ring a bell and hand out campaign literature to the New Yorkers like those "end is nigh" folks.

Posted by Sarah at 09:09 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 26, 2008


I just saw the preview of the movie W. Yeah, um, I'm not going to go see that. But all I could think of was how Laura Bush must feel. I can't imagine how I would stay composed if anyone made a movie like that about my husband. I would tear Oliver Stone limb from limb. Michael Moore too.

Posted by Sarah at 05:37 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 24, 2008


So I have a hot date Friday night for a debate that may not happen. Bummer.
I'm with Powerline on what this may mean.

Posted by Sarah at 10:01 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 23, 2008


I've mentioned before that I voted for Al Gore in 2000. I knew deep in my bones that I was a Republican, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for George Bush because I thought he was far less experienced than Al Gore and that mattered to me. Excelsior!

So I got to thinking today...I hope there are Democrat voters out there who think like I did in 2000, because now the tables are turned. I hope there are Democrats who know they are Democrats but can't bring themselves to vote for Barrack Obama because he's far less experienced than John McCain.

Of course, the twist ending to all of this is that I was wrong about George Bush and I think he ended up doing a far better job than Al Gore would've done. I'm not sure I could ever get my brain to believe that Obama could do a better job than McCain, but if Obama is elected, I sure hope he rises to the challenge.

Posted by Sarah at 12:12 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 17, 2008


This made me laugh out loud. I remember seeing it on SNL years ago, but I had forgotten how funny it is. Thanks, Oda Mae!

McCain Sings Streisand!

Posted by Sarah at 08:29 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 16, 2008


I caught parts of the Obama interview with Bill O'Reilly, but since I already know I'm not going to vote for him, I didn't go out of my way to hear what else he has to say. So I was surprised when Oda Mae sent me this Jacoby article with a quote I didn't hear the first time around.

Well, I guess I'm just not very neighborly.

"If I am sitting pretty and you've got a waitress who is making minimum wage plus tips, and I can afford it and she can't, what's the big deal for me to say, I'm going to pay a little bit more? That's neighborliness." If that is Obama's rationale for making the tax code even more steeply progressive than it already is, it's no wonder voters are having second thoughts about his economic aptitude.

"Neighborliness." Perhaps that word has a nonstandard meaning to someone whose home adjoined the property of convicted swindler Tony Rezko, but extracting money by force from someone who earned it in order to give it to someone who didn't is not usually spoken of as neighborly. If Citizen Obama, "sitting pretty," reaches into his own pocket and helps out the waitress with a large tip, he has shown a neighborly spirit. But there is nothing neighborly about using the tax code to compel someone else to pay the waitress that tip.

Taxation is not generosity, it is confiscation at gunpoint. Does Obama not understand the difference?

Posted by Sarah at 09:07 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 15, 2008


For the record, I think McCain looks just fine in this cover photo.


I think he looks way less ridiculous than this cover.


Posted by Sarah at 08:04 PM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

September 05, 2008


I was a Fred Thompson supporter, and I wasn't so keen on McCain.

However, tonight when McCain's video montage began, I admit that I got a little glistening in my eyes. Not because of the video itself but because I felt something that I didn't expect to be feeling.

McCain deserves to be president.

I don't like to put it that way, but that's how I feel tonight. If our citizens look past the man who has spent his entire adult life serving our country and instead choose the man who's been on the scene for 140 days, I will be very disappointed in my fellow Americans.

I believed every word of McCain's speech. I believe he meant every word of it.

He was not my first choice. I don't agree with him on several things. He asked me to do things I don't want to do; I don't usually want to compromise on things I believe to be true. But he's right that we have to compromise if we're going to get anything accomplished.

So I will fight with him.

And while I absolutely cannot compare my life story to his, and France is not quite as bad as North Vietnam, I too never loved my country as much as when I didn't live in it. I understand this love, though probably never to the depth that he feels it.

I believe that anything and everything he does for our country he does because he honestly thinks it's the right decision. That's what I want in a leader.

And the protestors who interrupted him, they showed themselves to be the classless trash that they are. McCain's right: they're static.

It's laser beam time.

Posted by Sarah at 12:27 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

September 03, 2008


I laughed out loud and clapped my hands like a goon when Palin mentioned taking the styrofoam pillars back to the movie set. Ha! And laughed even louder when she said that the best endorsement of McCain is that Harry Reid hates him.

Man, she was on fire.

(She reminds me of a cross between Guard Wife and AWTM. I'm surprised she never called Obama a douchebag.)

My favorite line came from Giuliani: "Change is not a destination just as hope is not a strategy."

Rivaled by Palin's "There are some candidates who use change to promote their careers, and then there are those like John McCain who use their careers to promote change."

I'm grinnin' here folks.

I was scared in 2004, but I feel pretty good tonight.

And I have this hilarious scene running on a loop through my head from O Brother Where Art Thou:

Junior O'Daniel: Well, he's the reform candidate, Daddy.
Pappy O"Daniel: Yeah.
Junior O'Daniel: A lot of people like that reform. Maybe we should get us some.
Pappy O"Daniel: I'll reform you, you soft-headed sombitch. How we gonna run reform when we're the damn incumbent? Is that the best idea you boys can come up with? Reform?! Weepin' Jesus on the cross. That's it! You may as well start drafting my concession speech right now.

John McCain is the incumbent party, running on reform. And doing a mighty fine job of it.

Posted by Sarah at 11:02 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


As Frank J said, "Who would win in a fight between John Wayne and Chuck Norris? Fred Thompson."
Fred tore it up.
I am happy tonight.
There was no doom and gloom at my convention.

Posted by Sarah at 12:08 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

September 01, 2008


Two new links via CG. The first comes from American Princess, who's happy to have a VP candidate who walks the walk:

Just try to talk abortion with a woman who was offered the opportunity to kill her Down’s Syndrome baby and passed it up, choosing instead to give the baby life. Just try to talk about health care, the price of groceries and the price of gas with a woman who raised five kids in the wilderness. Just try to talk about unions and labor jobs with a woman married to a union steelworker who does Deadliest Catch style crab fishing. On these issues she’s Rock. Solid.

(Also, go read the whole thing and see why she brilliantly said, "The man who wanted “change,” adopted the Bush mentality on dual Presidency.")

The second link comes from Heather MacDonald, who does not support the Palin pick because it panders to identity politics.

Of course, Democrats have been playing the identity-politics game to the hilt this election cycle; it’s what they do. And it will be amusing to watch them twist themselves into knots to avoid criticizing the Palin pick for what it is: a diversity ploy. As short-term political strategy, the Palin selection has diabolical appeal. Prevented from stating the obvious—Palin was chosen because she was a woman—the Democrats will instead have to seize on her lack of experience. They are right to do so, but then they have to explain why Barack Obama is so much more qualified for the top of the ticket, let alone the number two spot.

It's hard not to be overjoyed that this will work to our advantange, though I understand MacDonald's feeling that "Your enthusiasm for her is driven in large measure by the fact that the McCain camp has beaten the Democrats at their own game, and in so doing, driven Obama’s moment of glory off the wires."

Posted by Sarah at 03:54 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 29, 2008


The husband logged in to chat to talk about Palin! So exciting to get to share that with him. He kept inserting Jonah Goldberg quotes into the chat. It was fun. And here's how we ended:

Sarah says:
  I love you and I am so excited about Palin and I'm glad you got to see me with brushed hair
Husband says:
  me too
Husband says:
  for both things
Husband says:
  mostly Palin though
Sarah says:
Husband says:
  I don't care what your hair looks like

He's the greatest and I miss him terribly.

Posted by Sarah at 12:40 PM | Comments (7) | TrackBack


Sarah Palin?

I'm kinda doing that thing Cartman does where he runs in a circle and says "you guys, you guys, seriously."


Man, I wish I could call my husband.

Posted by Sarah at 11:14 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack


Watched Obama last night. The various authors at The Corner summed up everything I thought during the speech. VDH even said "Hope and Change Become Gloom and Doom" like I said yesterday. And overall, I thought that the speech was great, as long as you don't know anything else about Obama. But my laugh-out-loud moment came from this Jonah Goldberg gem:

And My Fellow Americans...
If we all work our hardest, we can make this the best yearbook ever!



Another good line from Five Feet of Fury:

I can't be the only one sick of hearing speech after speech out of the DNC, regaling America with cringe-inducing anecdotes about one-armed, one-legged, dying, dirt poor pathetic losers.
I'm getting sarcastic emails (and hearing similar comments on radio and around the web) saying: "Gee, here I thought I was living in America. After listening to the speeches this week, I realized I'm living in Rwanda and didn't even know it! Thank you, Democrats, for telling me what a pathetic failure of a nation I call home!"

Posted by Sarah at 08:50 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 27, 2008


I waited all afternoon to watch the DNC tonight. Once it started, I lasted ten minutes before I wondered why I was giving myself an ulcer sitting through this gloom and doom stuff. Hope is out the window; tonight all we've got is change. Tonight it's all about The End of the American Dream.

Bill Clinton said we need to "rebuild the American dream." Joe Biden said "the American dream is slipping away."

Biden talked about people who can't pay their bills and said, "These are common stories among middle-class people who've worked hard their whole life and played by the rules, on the promise that their tomorrows would be better than their yesterdays. That promise is the promise of America."

And I suppose Joe Biden just summed up why I will never be a Democrat.

The greatness of America is not that everyone's tomorrows will be better than their yesterdays. It's simply not; that's not something you can promise. The greatness of America is that everyone has the opportunity for better tomorrows. The chances are there for the taking, but it's not a promise.

The Democrats want to promise you that they will make all 300 million of our lives better. That's absurd. But Barack Obama is all about "the world as it should be." He'll promise you some ideal that can never be lived up to, something that doesn't exist. Some America where no one makes less than twenty bucks an hour and everyone is guaranteed a low interest rate on a McMansion. Where everyone's health care is free but no one's taxes go up except for Exxon executives'. An America of no trade offs, no opportunity costs at all. Flowers and sausages for everyone, once Obama's in power. A full 180 from the gloom and doom we live in now. Come January, life will be perfect.

Audacity, indeed.

Frankly, I'm disappointed that all the Democrats can talk about is changing America. If there's even a whiff of that at the Republican convention next week, I'm afraid I'll cry. The United States of America is already the greatest country on the planet. I'm weary of hearing speech after speech about how we need to change it. How it's "downright mean." How we need to set a better example for the world.

How the American dream is dead.

I don't want to change anything about our country. I don't want the government (spit) to promise me my American dream, to promise me the picket fence and microwave oven. I only want my government to assure me that all the dreams I could ever want are at my fingertips if I work hard enough and make good decisions. And then get the hell out of the way and let me work towards them.

That is the promise of America.

And that is why I'm not a Democrat.

Posted by Sarah at 11:08 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

August 23, 2008


I always seem to be on the road when big things happen. A few weeks ago, I got to my destination to find out that Russia had invaded Georgia and John Edwards was in hot water. I was also gone yesterday and came home to find out Obama has a VP.

A comment from Scrapiron over at Flopping Aces:

There goes the ‘D.C.’ insider rants.
There goes the he’s too ‘old’ rants.
There goes the ‘Bush’s’ war rants.

Hooray. I also saw at RWN via Gina Cobb that Biden got an F in ROTC class, so there's no chance for all the John Kerry Reporting For Duty, importance of military service stuff that the Dems trumpeted last time. Hard to out-awesome McCain in that category, even with an A in ROTC (which I got...heh.)

I've been reading everyone's refresher posts on all the dumb stuff Biden's said in the past few years, and I'm feeling pretty good here. Not cocky, but good. Better than I felt in '04, actually. And great once I read this gem:

Crowley's TNR profile concludes with a striking example of Biden's foreign policy sophistication. In the wake of 9/11, in a meeting with his staff, Biden experienced an epiphany:

Biden launches into a stream-of-consciousness monologue about what his [Senate Foreign Relations] committee should be doing, before he finally admits the obvious: "I'm groping here." Then he hits on an idea: America needs to show the Arab world that we're not bent on its destruction. "Seems to me this would be a good time to send, no strings attached, a check for $200 million to Iran," Biden declares. He surveys the table with raised eyebrows, a How do ya like that? look on his face.

Now if McCain can keep himself from doing something asinine like picking Lieberman, we might be good to go.

Posted by Sarah at 04:51 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

August 13, 2008


A throwaway line from a good article about the bombing of Hiroshima:

Truman, president for less than 3 months and in the dark about the Manhattan Project during his entire vice presidency, was being given advice from every corner on how to end the war.

Wow. The compartmentalization these men must maintain.
I could never be president.

Posted by Sarah at 04:20 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

July 21, 2008


So...during primary season, my husband opted for strategery and pulled a Mary Katherine Ham. Therefore, I found it hilarious today that he received a letter in the mail from the RNC asking him why he's abandoned the Republican Party. It called him a "grassroots leader." I am seriously sniggering here.

Posted by Sarah at 09:16 PM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

July 18, 2008


The husband sent me a good link today, under the simple email subject line of "Krauthammer rules": Who Does Obama Think He Is?

Incidentally, I watched North By Northwest last night -- such a good movie and can I point out how Cary Grant makes me melt? -- and I had a good chuckle when I remembered Obama's bonehead question of how they had filmed the movie on top of Mount Rushmore. I hope he hadn't seen that movie in a long time, because the Rushmore they used was comically fake-looking. It is entirely obvious it wasn't the real deal.

But hey, at least Obama didn't ask to see the entrance where Nicolas Cage found the city of gold.

Posted by Sarah at 04:01 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

June 30, 2008


I heard this Wesley Clark clip on the radio today, and it was so stunning I actually turned to the radio with this face.


Schieffer: How can you say that John McCain is untested and untried? General?

Clark: Because in the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents, and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in Armed Forces as a prisoner of war. He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and he has traveled all over the world. But he hasn't held executive responsibility. That large squadron in Air- in the Navy that he commanded, it wasn't a wartime squadron. He hasn't been there and ordered the bombs to fall. He hasn't seen what it's like when diplomats come in and say, 'I don't know whether we're going to be able to get this point through or not. Do you want to take the risk? What about your reputation? How do we handle it publicly.' He hasn't made those calls, Bob.

Seriously. Upside down face.

Posted by Sarah at 03:50 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 20, 2008


So apparently there's a new Obama ad by MoveOn where a woman holding a new baby tells John McCain that he can't "have" her child for his 100 years in Iraq.

Oh, puh-lease.

You know what, John McCain? We don't have a baby yet, but when we do, you can definitely have him or her. That is, if our child wants to join the military; you and I don't get much say in coercing the kid, neither to get in or stay out. But I have no problem with it. And I'm pretty sure you can have Erin's Tucker too. He's already got the camo thing nailed.

So the selfish blond lady can keep her baby at home. We've got at least two others you can "have."

What a dumb ad.

Posted by Sarah at 08:54 AM | Comments (12) | TrackBack

May 19, 2008


Greyhawk has a good post about how two-faced the Democrats are. Senator Harkin flipped out four years ago because Bush/Cheney didn't have enough military experience and John Kerry did, but now that the Republican nominee has way more military experience than the Dem candidates, now Harkin says that too much military service is a bad thing.

For heaven's sake. Someone needs to remind these people that teh internets keep copies of their old statements.

Posted by Sarah at 09:55 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack


Obama says this about his chances in Kentucky:

"What it says is that I'm not very well known in that part of the country," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it's not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle."

No, this is not a made-up quote from The Onion. He actually believes this, apparently. Problem is, a quick glance at a U.S. map reveals that Illinois actually borders Kentucky and is clearly closer than Arkansas. Illinois is also closer to West Virginia, Pennsylvania and Ohio. Obama has been scaring me with these frankly Bushian statements for months, and this one is a whooper.

One quick quibble: Obama is from Chicago, not Illinois. To anyone from that state, that distinction is obvious. Chicago doesn't border Kentucky, so why on earth would he care if the southern rednecky part of Illinois touched rednecky Kentucky? Come on, Kentucky is way more like Arkansas than Chicago. Everyone knows this, right? That's where all the bitter gun nuts and Jesus freaks are. Saying so isn't elitist or condescending at all.


"Some of those states in the middle." Excuse me while I barf.

Posted by Sarah at 09:38 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 25, 2008


Peggy Noonan is good squishy today. I'm not even going to excerpt because you need to read the whole thing.

Posted by Sarah at 08:13 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

April 17, 2008


Wow. After the Dem debate last night, a bunch of Democrat focus groupers talked about why they'd consider voting for John McCain. Check out the video.

I am putting my fingers together like Monty Burns and saying, "Exxxcellent."

Posted by Sarah at 10:40 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

March 27, 2008


Hillary Clinton was in town today, and they broadcast her speech on the radio. I happened to catch quite a bit of it because I was driving a long distance today. And a lot of it made my skin crawl.

I'll be fair here; it's not just Hillary. John McCain's speech the other day made me want to puke, what with his global warming and closing Gitmo. I don't like listening to politicians in general. I hate how politicians promise everything to everyone. If I'm elected, I'm going to do this and this and this. No details, no actual plans that can be analyzed for efficacy, just feel-good drivel. Ick. I want my politicians to be like my husband or my dad, putting out the vibe that life is hard and you have to make tough choices sometimes. You can't always get everything for free, and government isn't here to grant your every wish. I want Rachel Lucas' news network called "Tough Shit, America."

Instead, politicians promise the moon. Hillary said she's going to create more jobs, make college more affordable, give everyone health care, fix social security without privatizing it, and a host of other stuff. And all of this is supposed to happen without raising taxes on the middle class. Well, the poor don't pay squat, so guess who's footing the bill: people who actually do create jobs.

I don't want politicians doing most of this stuff. Make college more affordable? College should be a privilege, not a right, and newsflash: not everyone should go. Moreover, you don't have the right to borrow money at 2% interest so you can better yourself. Get real. I've been reading Milton Friedman's Capitalism and Freedom, and he advocated no government funding of higher education at all. No state-run universities, nothing. That's hardcore. But education is not the role of the federal government.

And creating more jobs, what an empty promise. She said that the backbone of any economy is "making things" and that we need to stop losing our manufacturing jobs. Why? John Stossel says

Manufacturing jobs are no better for America than other jobs. Some argue that they are worse. How many parents want their children to work in factories rather than offices? Increasing service jobs in medical, financial and computer sectors while importing manufactured goods doesn't hurt America. It helps America.

I think it was Neal Boortz who said a while back that manufacturing jobs are beneath Americans. That thought raised my eyebrows, but I see what he means. Why would we want to increase the sector of the economy with the lowest skilled jobs? Let's work with our brains, not with our fingers.

And during the question period, someone asked Hillary what she'll do to fight racism. Tom tapdancing Cruise. I don't want my president to do anything to fight racism, save not being racist himself. Otherwise, the federal government has no business meddling in race relations. Blech.

Hillary also told a sob story about why we need health care for everyone. Some girl in Ohio got pregnant and couldn't afford the $100 fee to see a doctor. In the end, she had to get taken to the emergency room and she and the baby died. Sad, terrible story. But here's the bitch in me: if you don't have $100, why on earth are you having a baby? Don't get yourself knocked up if you can't afford to protect the baby's health or your own. I don't want the Face Of Health Care Woes to be that rich SCHIP family, but I don't want it to be pregnant unwed girls either. I don't want to foot the bill so some other pregnant girl doesn't have to pay to go to the doctor, when we saved every spare dime we've made for the past six years so we'd be ready for our own baby.

The speech closed with a question on what Hillary planned to do to prevent heart disease. She actually said the phrase, "We're gonna have to do more to change people's behavior." Gulp. That's not the government's job either.

Bleh, government makes me ill.

Posted by Sarah at 07:12 PM | Comments (10) | TrackBack

March 26, 2008


Hilary Clinton's foreign policy experience is that once she went to Bosnia when someone might've had the opportunity to shoot in her general direction. Hmmm. I think that means Jessica Simpson also has the same amount of foreign policy experience. After all, she says she heard mortar rounds in Iraq.

Posted by Sarah at 12:52 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 19, 2008


What happened yesterday was an Obamination. (Sorry, I just really wanted to find a way to make that joke.)


Madonna is "controversial," champ. Changing the opening theme to Monk was "controversial." The Patriots' SpyGate was "controversial."

This was vicious and vile anti-Americanism and racism and anti-semitism. If those things are, to you, merely "controversial," it seems you need a teachable moment or two, rather than presuming to fill us with "understanding."

Stanley Kurtz:

No, Obama does not fully agree with Jeremiah Wright, but the Democratic Party under Obama will be complacent about its Michael Moore wing. That’s why the MoveOn types are so excited about Obama. There will be plenty of the most left-leaning appointees staffing the federal bureaucracy and set into judgeships under Obama, and all of it will be smoothed over by speeches about national healing and understanding pain. Under Obama, the Michael Moore-MoveOn wing, far from being purged, will be in the catbird seat, and all because they’ve found the perfect spokesman.

Newt Gingrich:

So, here's question; if you knew a year ago that (Wright) was saying things so anti-American, so dishonest, so hateful, that you were going to have to disown him, then...why did you only disown him when it became such a big political issue? And if you thought what he was saying was false and wrong and to be condemned, why didn't you care enough for him to try to teach him the truth? I don't think he can have it both ways...

...if he can't give a different opinion to Reverend Wright, who he has known for 20 years, I sure don't want him visiting the dictator, Ahmadinejad, or visiting the younger Castro brother. ...This is a core question of character. How can you ask me to believe that this guy who has said he wants to visit Kim Jung-Il...(he thinks) the President of the United States ought to talk to anybody. He can't even talk to his own pastor?

Here's something really obvious that I haven't yet heard someone ask. Obama says that he wasn't in the pews when these things were being said. But he was friends with this pastor for 20 years. In all their personal talks after church or in their homes, these ideas never came up? Wright cares enough to get fired up on Sunday but not to mention his beef with the US when he's got a Senator's ear? I seriously doubt that. I mean, seriously. He screams and rants and shouts from the pulpit but never once brings his views up outside of church? Right. Obama knew his pastor was an angry racist and continued to be friends with him. Period.

Has Obama jumped the shark yet?

Posted by Sarah at 08:51 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

March 18, 2008


I heard this in the car yesterday. Rush makes a good point:

Obama, by the way, is purposely campaigning on character, his character. He is a uniter, we need to get past the old visions, politics of the past, blah, blah, blah, blah, without ever providing evidence of that character. We haven't seen any evidence of the character. We've heard flowery speeches of nothing, delivered greatly. We don't see any evidence of the character. What we see is that this guy is surrounded by people who are constantly enraged, ticked off about everything, mostly their country. Now we see evidence of his character as exemplified by his choice of church, by his choice of reverend, and we're supposed to await proof of him being in the pews, when the worst of these things were spewed to the pews?

The double standard here is Mitt Romney. Here's a guy whose religion was trashed as a cult. The Drive-By Media did everything they could, there were some on the Republican side -- ahem -- no need to mention names now because they're no longer in the race, but they were out there trying to undermine Romney on the base of religion. Romney went out and gave a great speech in Texas about it. We're supposed to just look past this because Obama wasn't in the pews when the Reverend J. Wright was spewing this stuff to the people in the pews.

You remember that I read countless comment threads about Romney and people who wouldn't vote for him because he's Mormon. And there were always many comments about how Romney is racist because offical Mormon doctrine was racist up until 1978. And because he didn't denounce his church's policy or renounce his faith when blacks couldn't be members, they would not be able to vote for him.

So Romney was held personally responsible for church doctrine from 1978, but Obama doesn't have to answer for what his minister says last month if he wasn't actually in church that day.


Posted by Sarah at 10:13 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

March 08, 2008


My husband encouraged me to watch the new McCain campaign video this morning. I hadn't watched it because, well, I already know I'm voting for him. But I did watch it, and I loved it. It was beautiful and inspiring. Ann Althouse dissects the commercial here.

Also, what is the deal about this McCain "flipping out" thing? Seriously, talking forcefully to a reporter is called losing your cool? These oversensitive people should have a conversation with my husband; just yesterday he said that a certain Army wife author should be "set on fire and pushed down the stairs." And that's a gentle insult coming from him. We were laughing that we wish McCain would flip out, really let someone have it. He said he wants a president who doesn't suffer fools.

We watched Annie Hall last night and kept pausing it and trying to put it in it's social context. My husband noted that it came out four years after McCain was released from Hanoi. While it's a decent enough and quirky movie, can you imagine seeing it after being tortured for five years? These are people's problems? This won Best Picture, a show about people who are unhappy dating each other? I don't know how you go back to being a normal person after being a POW. How long does it take before the little things in life start bugging you again? I wonder when you feel normal enough again to complain about the pseudo-intellectual talking loudly in line at the movies. When does the just-happy-to-be-alive feeling wear off?

Posted by Sarah at 08:38 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

February 23, 2008


I got Fredstruck this year and forgot my love for ol' George W. This video of his whiteboy dancing reminded me of how charming I think he is. He deserves to party like a rock star for a day.

Posted by Sarah at 03:38 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

February 21, 2008


John Hawkins has a good post up today called Conservatism: Principles and Power. One section that caught my eye was this:

We've also gotten way off the tracks on the "purity" issue. There's this sense that if conservatism gets more pure, if we can just get rid of the RINOS, we can dominate again -- but that's not true. When a political party is losing, they need to find ways to draw more people into the tent, not throw people out.

I've been reading many comments sections these days, so I'm sorry that I can't remember where I read this. But someone was complaining that the Religious Right gets all the focus as the base of the Republican Party. He said (paraphrase), "As a fiscal conservative, when will I finally be accepted as part of 'the base'?" I completely relate to this. I want to know when my worries about spending will matter as much as others' worries about the sanctity of marriage. Pres. Bush (pbuh) has been running around like a teen with his dad's credit card, but all the questions at the YouTube debate were about which parts of the Bible the candidates take literally. I just don't freaking care.

In another comment thread the other day (sorry, don't remember where I saw this either), Democrats kept saying that the reason they need to defeat John McCain is so he won't overturn Roe v Wade. Honestly, that is so far from my mind right now that it made me snicker. I would prefer that abortion be left up to the states, but this issue is not at all a priority for me in voting. I am worried about the war and about spending. Period.

Hawkins is right when he goes on to say:

We should always be asking ourselves, "How can we reach out to more Americans?" How can we apply our principles in different areas to reach larger blocks of voters? What new solutions can we come up with to the problems that the American people are concerned about? In some of these areas, we've done a good job. In others, we haven't.

Solutions. We need real ideas, and realistic ideas, especially on spending. I remember how thrilled I was when Pres. Bush was talking about reforming social security back in 2004. I was beside myself with excitement at the time, but it went nowhere. And I think the Democrats are deluding themselves over health care the same way we did over social security four years ago; it's just not going to happen. Or at least it's not going to happen the way they want it to.

I remember hearing John McCain in one of the first debates getting hammered for the immigration bill, and he got an exasperated look on his face and tried to explain that it wasn't a perfect bill, it wasn't even something that he personally was all that thrilled about, but that you have to make concessions and compromises in order to get anything done in Congress. And I felt for him in that moment. It's so easy for those of us on the outside to point fingers at Congress about what they should and shouldn't be doing, but we don't have to sit in the same room as Nancy Pelosi and try to hammer out solutions. Can we even have any idea how hard that must be?

Most people don't like McCain because he is too willing to work with the other side, but that's how you get more people in the tent. And I quoted Lileks yesterday on compromise; I do believe that it's folly to compromise on your major principles. But if Congress is at a roughly 50/50 split, there's no way a MoveOn.org idea nor a Pon Raul idea is going to pass the vote. The solutions will have to be somewhere in the middle.

Which is why I think that the most important thing is for Republicans to get seriously better at explaining how their positions help people. Read a Thomas Sowell book and you have all the info you need, in layman's terms, to show people how economic ideas that are typically labeled "Republican" are the better choice. So why don't our Republican politicians do this? Steal from Sowell if you must; I bet he wouldn't mind! But make people realize that all these feel-good ideas the Dems come up with -- everything for everyone, free! -- are nonsense. Help people think beyond stage one. Show them that a clean environment is good but Kyoto will cripple us, that more affordable health care is within our reach if we let the free market take its course, or that a higher minimum wage means we get our hours cut. Arm the voters with knowledge and the tides will shift, and when Congress tips in our favor, we have to make less concessions and compromises.

We need to stop letting Democrats get away with "stage one thinking" and start pulling more people into our tent. Why are the same people thrilled that Lieberman moved slightly right of center but appalled over John McCain? There should be plenty of room on our side for both of them, for everyone.

Micklethwait and Wooldridge said that our country is steadily getting more conservative. I'd really like to believe that. But I think we could give it a little push if we got better at explaining our solutions.

Posted by Sarah at 04:33 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 07, 2008


I want to go on the record as agreeing with Rachel Lucas. She has apparently been taking a ton of heat for saying that conservatives ought to vote for McCain in November if they don't want someone worse. I said it in a short version recently, but she lays it out in far more detail than I did. If you want to follow her argument, which I think is completely sound, here are the relevant posts:

Dear People, You have lost your minds. Love, Rachel.
I feel like I've been at an illegal cockfight for 2 days
I can stand the heat so I’m staying in the kitchen. (But I will not make you a sandwich.)
This debate is like crack

Posted by Sarah at 10:08 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack


OK, I'm irritable. Our state primary isn't until May. May, for pete's sake. Nothin' like having zero say at all in the primary process. I imagine my choices will be McCain and Pon Raul. Gee, thanks.

So in theory, Michigan was right. Even though they forfeited their delegates, they still got to influence the outcome. They get no votes later, but at least they got the media reaction. Meanwhile, states like mine get nothing at all, no influence, no delegates that matter.

So we still have about 20 states left, and it's done. And my candidate was out after only six states. Maybe if the primaries weren't spread out over five freaking months, he might've had a better chance. Or someone would've had a better chance. More importantly, people would've voted for the candidate they agreed with, not the candidate that the media steered them towards by telling them their first choice had no shot.

Not happy.

Posted by Sarah at 05:41 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

February 01, 2008


I'm just kind of flabbergasted that it looks like the Republican candidate might be McCain. Six months ago there was no way on earth it'd be McCain. Shoot, one month ago in Iowa he got slightly less delegates than Fred. I don't know about you, but I sure as heck didn't see this coming.

John Hawkins lays out some good points in his new article, "Why You're Going To Vote For John McCain In November And Like It!" There are some on teh internets who say that they'd rather stay home than vote for McCain, or that we deserve four years of Hillary to wake us up to just how bad it can get.

I told that last one to my husband, who replied that stupid, stubborn Republican voters will indeed deserve Hillary if they can't hold their nose at the polls and punch a chad for McCain, but that our military doesn't deserve Hillary. Our troops don't deserve a fate of fleeing Baghdad à la Saigon. Our troops don't deserve to be told again that they fought and died for nothing.

So hold your nose, throw up in your mouth a little, whatever it takes, but vote for McCain if he's our guy. There may not be a huge difference between him and the Dems, but there certainly is a difference when it comes to the GWOT.

Posted by Sarah at 10:15 AM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 31, 2008


"So, who are you going to vote for?"

There are few words that strike fear into my heart like those. How much should I say to someone I am just getting to know? Should I let on how much I follow this kind of stuff? Dear heavens, what if she says she's voting for Hillary?

It worked out just fine in this case and we had a lovely chat. But man, do I hate when that comes up for the first time.

Posted by Sarah at 01:47 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 30, 2008


I had the thought today that, if Hillary Clinton is elected president, as a woman I will probably be expected to be happy that we have reached a historical milestone. Instead I will feel zero percent joy. I don't care if we ever have a woman president; I only want a good president. I don't care if it's a woman, man, Rhodesian Ridgeback, whatever, as long as they approach the job from my value system. Otherwise, I will be bummed.

(Also, do go and read that link of Rachel Lucas' dog's platform, if only for the little quotes under the issues. See here and here. It is teh funny.)

Posted by Sarah at 12:43 PM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

January 23, 2008


Parting thoughts from a Fred Thompson staffer:

Personally, I’m hoping that he does not accept one of the political appointments, which he shall surely be offered. Ultimately, the reason that his ideas couldn’t overcome the advantages of organization is that ideas still do not count for as much as they should in the 21st century. Fred, however, is in a better position today to spread and explain those ideas than he ever has been; sort of a Newt Gingrich without the baggage.

If you were a Fred guy, read the whole thing.

I remain disappointed that you have to lust after the presidency in order to be considered a serious candidate.

Posted by Sarah at 08:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 14, 2008


It sounds like Tim and Patti had a good day. I got this email from him tonight:

Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:58:22 -0500
From: tim
To: sarah
Subject: Just to Make You Jealous...

...I shook hands with Fred today.

Tee Hee


Too cool.

Posted by Sarah at 08:06 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

January 06, 2008


We watched the Democrats debate last night. How tired am I of the phrase "But let me first say..."? They get asked a direct question and given 30 seconds to answer, and they say, "But let me first say..." and go on some tangent and never answer the original question.

There was also a mini-exposé about how Social Security will run out in 2017 and Medicare will run out in 2013, so what do you suggest to do about it as president? All of them answered that the solution to the problem was...change. They are all pro-change. They actively and vociferously support change. Problem is, they never exactly said what it was they planned to change in order to make us stop running out of money. They completely didn't answer the question.

Vodkapundit clowned on 'em in his drunkblogging:

9:00pm Did you know that Hillary has experience? Experience with change? Change that only her experience, her experience with change, can bring about? And that she’s a woman, a woman bringing change with her experience of womanness? Yeah, me neither.

Roger L. Simon has decided we must ban the word change from English.

The whole exchange was so meaningless that it reminded me of the presidential debate on Futurama:

John Jackson: It's time someone had the courage to stand up and say: I'm against those things that everybody hates.

Jack Johnson: Now, I respect my opponent. I think he's a good man. But quite frankly, I agree with everything he just said.

Are we there yet?

Posted by Sarah at 11:04 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

January 05, 2008


Wyoming held its caucus today. (Did you even know that? I didn't. Iowa stole the show.) Romney got most of the delegates, but this quote from the article rankled me a tad:

"Number one, he campaigned here," delegate Leigh Vosler of Cheyenne said of Romney. "I think that helped while some other candidates ignored us. But also he's the right person for the job."

Am I the only one who thinks that it's sad that people will vote for someone just because he kissed up to them? I have not gotten a single piece of mail, email, or phonecall from any candidate at all, so I based my choice on reading articles and opinion pieces from people I respect and watching the debates. I don't need a candidate to come suck up to me and shake my hand in a diner to make me want to vote for him.

Politics is so fascinating...and so disgusting.

Posted by Sarah at 08:33 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

January 04, 2008


This, this is exactly how I feel:

I know, this is how politics in America works, it's all Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, all the time. But look at the ideological variety on the GOP side, and tell me that if we listen only to the winners coming out of those three states, how can they POSSIBLY produce a consensus candidate for 2008?
Just because bat-crazy Iowa loves its Huck and looney-tunes New Hampshire loves to vote for mavericks, this means I'm going to lose any chance at all to support Fred, Mitt, or Rudy in a mere month's time? And this is accepted as normal and sane why??

I've only been interested in politics for a few years, and I didn't have to do much last time except watch my incumbent and wait for November. But now that this caucus and primary rigamarole affects me too, I feel mighty frustrated.

I'm just ready for it to be November already.

Posted by Sarah at 08:18 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

December 30, 2007


My husband told me this morning about the speech Fred Thompson gave on why he wants to be president. I am trying really hard not to get too emotionally invested in this man, because I'm not sure the rest of the country wants the same type of president that I do. And if I want it too badly, I will be too disappointed if it doesn't work out. But I want a president who says things like this:

I approached it from the standpoint of a deal. A kind of a marriage. If one side of a marriage really has to be talked into the marriage, it probably ain’t going to be a good deal. But if you mutually decide it’s going to be a good thing. In this case, if you think this is a good thing for the country, then we have an opportunity to do some wonderful things together.

I’m offering myself up. I’m saying that I have the background, the capability and concern to do this and do it for the right reasons. I’m not particularly interested in running for president, but I think I’d make a good president.

Nowadays, the process has become much more important than it used to be.

I don’t know that they ever asked George Washington a question like this. I don’t know that they ever asked Dwight D. Eisenhower a question like this. But nowadays, it’s all about fire in the belly. I’m not sure in the world we live in today it’s a good thing if a president has too much fire in the belly.

I mean, I just want to quote the whole danged thing, it's that good. He goes on later to say:

If what people really want in their president is a super type A personality, someone who has gotten up every morning and gone to bed every night and been thinking about, for years how they can be president of the United States… someone who can look you straight in the eye and say they’ve enjoyed every minute of campaigning… (laughter) I ain’t that guy. (more laughter) [To questioner] So I hope I’ve discussed that, or I haven’t talked you out of anything. I honestly want… I can’t imagine a worse set of circumstances than achieving the presidency under a false pretenses, especially if you feel the way I do. I’ve gone out of my way to be myself, because I don’t want anybody to think they’re getting something they’re not getting. I’m not consumed by this process, I’m not consumed with the notion of being president. I’m simply saying I’m willing to do what’s necessary to achieve it if I’m in sync with the people. And if the people want me, or somebody like me, I will do what I’ve always done with everything else in my life. I will take it on and do a good job. You’ll have the disadvantage of having someone who probably can’t jump up and click their heels three times, but will tell you the truth. And you’ll know where the president stands at all times.

(Hat tip to my husband and Instapundit.)

Posted by Sarah at 03:09 PM | Comments (6) | TrackBack

December 14, 2007


I will support the Republican nominee for president. I could be fully satisfied with any of the men in the field right now, and I would embrace any one of them as my president. But it's time to say who I'd prefer to see in office, and it's time to get out the checkbook.

I'm with Fred.

And I'm with Fred because of things like this:

But in the last month or so Thompson has acted like a man who has been liberated from something. And that is what voters saw on stage Wednesday: a presidential candidate who has declared himself fully free of the stupid stuff one has to do to become president of the United States.

If you’re going to ask Fred Thompson to participate in a grade-school show of hands, or demand that he sign a pledge, or insist that he speak emotionally and at length about how much his religious faith means to him, well, you can just forget it. He’s not gonna do it.

And that's why we love him.

Posted by Sarah at 10:45 AM | Comments (6) | TrackBack


I am always fascinated when I come across something that a vaunted past president did, something that would never be considered heroic or courageous if the current president did it.

Right before the move to Dorchester Heights during the Revolutionary War, George Washington issued the following order to his continental army (as quoted in David McCullough's 1776):

But it may not be amiss for the troops to know that if any man in action shall presume to skulk, hide himself, or retreat from the enemy, without the orders of his commanding officer, he will be instantly shot down, as an example of cowardice. [emphasis in original]

Just imagine, if you will, our current George putting forth such an order...

Posted by Sarah at 08:28 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

November 29, 2007


I watched part of the second half of the YouTube debate last night, and I came away from it feeling quite confused. I wondered if I was the only one who thought the questions were caricatures of Republicans. I mean, really, what else can you make of questions about What Would Jesus Do about capital punishment and "would you put women who got abortions in jail?" All the questions I heard sounded like Democrats asking Republicans about their stupid, weird views. Questions about what you think about the Confederate flag or a Muslim asking how to get the rest of the world to like us again? Really? I thought all the questions sounded like Democrats trying to play gotcha with the candidates. Do you believe every single word in the Bible? Puh-lease. That's political debate?

But I thought maybe it was just me. I only saw the social conservative questions, and that's not really my bag. I prefer the tax and terrorism stuff. I thought the questions were dumb, the cartoon Cheney was offensive, and the whole thing was weird.

I turned on the radio on the way home from my knitting class this morning, and I was actually surprised to hear that Rush Limbaugh also thought the questions were stupid. He made an astute point: people submitted their YouTube questions to CNN and CNN picked the ones to use. Since everyone at CNN is a Democrat, of course they picked questions that I think are stupid. They think my views are weird and laughable, so naturally they picked the questions that made the Republicans look kooky.

But seriously, the Confederate flag? That's just plain condescending and offensive towards my worldview.

Posted by Sarah at 12:48 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

November 06, 2007


Last night I had a dream that Mrs. Chuck Z and I were on a car trip to go meet the president. I woke up before I ever saw him, which was disappointing because I wonder what my subconscious would've cooked up to say to him.

So this morning, I was thinking about what I'd say if I had a few seconds to meet the president.

I think what I would like to say is to assure him that we're not a military family in distress. He gets all his info from the media too, so I'm sure he's heard that families are falling apart and that everyone blames him. But my husband and I feel very supported, very appreciated, and very in control of our destiny. We're not blaming anyone for where we are in life.

When we left the hospital the other day, my husband commented on how many resources there were for expecting families: classes, exercise groups, brochures, tours of the birthing unit, and all of it is free. The Army does so much for us and has so much to provide. We consider ourselves lucky to have such a support system behind us in everything we do.

So if I had a few seconds to greet the president, I would want him to know that we're happy, that we love this life, and that he doesn't need to attribute any of his grey hairs to us!

Posted by Sarah at 09:55 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

October 01, 2007


I thought John Kerry's "Service for College" program was pretty silly. I thought John Edwards' "Get Ahead Accounts" were stepping over the line. But Hillary Clinton's Throwing Money Around Like We Can Just Print More plan is really infuriating.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home.

Clinton, her party's front-runner in the 2008 race, made the suggestion during a forum hosted by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so that when that young person turns 18 if they have finished high school they will be able to access it to go to college or maybe they will be able to make that downpayment on their first home," she said.

Obviously it would be irresponsible to suggest this to voters before she's had a chance to sit down and crunch the numbers, right?

The New York senator did not offer any estimate of the total cost of such a program or how she would pay for it. Approximately 4 million babies are born each year in the United States.

Oh. She's just speaking out of her ass then.

Clinton said such an account program would help people get back to the tradition of savings that she remembers as a child, and has become harder to accomplish in the face of rising college and housing costs.

One way of building a stronger economy, she said, is "more savings, starting with the so-called baby bonds idea where every person born in this country would be given that kind of account because we want to make an investment in America's young people."

The savings you remember as a child? Yeah, your parents did that. Not the government. Your parents made do without new SUVs and plasma TVs until they had a plan for their children's future. My parents put aside a little bit of money for us to have when we grew up -- heck, not nearly as much as Clinton suggests the government should give -- and never touched it, even when they desperately could've used it. They sacrificed so their children could have a good start as adults. All Hillary's crappy plan would do is prevent parents from doing any saving for their kids because the government would just do it for them. Why forego that ATV for the kids when the government's got their future covered?

There's nothin' like a Democrat plan to keep people hooked on government.

But there's really no point in getting worked up over this. Just like all those other stupid plans, this one will disappear. It just really irks me that she brings this up in public to get votes, knowing full well it will never happen.

Posted by Sarah at 01:34 PM | Comments (9) | TrackBack

May 20, 2007


Last night we watched The Last King of Scotland, and I was so disgusted at the end of the movie that I lost sleep over it. Yes, I know the story portrayed is fiction, but Idi Amin was most certainly real.

What disgusts me the most is that there are rulers out there like Amin, yet people persist in calling President Bush evil. Have we no sense of evil? People in North Korea are eating children, but some American citizens can't stand to be associated with the American flag.

Google gets 1,850,000 hits for "George Bush evil" but only 178,000 for "Idi Amin evil." 65,700 for Arafat; 623,000 for Kim Jong-Il; and 264,000 for Mugabe.

We make me sick.

Posted by Sarah at 11:23 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

May 14, 2007


I too need to be reminded of these moments: The President Bush You Like

Posted by Sarah at 02:50 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

May 08, 2007


I had a moment yesterday where I was confronted with the fact that I am indeed a crazy person. Some of you know how obsessed I am with thank you cards, but to me it seems like completely normal behavior to thank a person who's done something nice for you. And I promise you I didn't think anything of it until my husband cracked up at me for walking towards the mailbox with a thank you card for President Bush. He was nice enough to send us a DVD speech, so he deserves a thank you, right? That doesn't seem normal to you? The look on my husband's face was priceless.

I swear I never even stopped to think about whether I should send him a card or not. The only hard decision was choosing which stationery seemed the most...presidential. Yep, I'm nuts.

Posted by Sarah at 09:00 AM | Comments (3) | TrackBack

April 16, 2007


There's an argument going on at Political Radar over Hillary Clinton's qualifications for being president. I thought this comment by "colin" was spot-on:

Yeah it would be nice to have a woman be our President. But we cheapen the historical significance of such an event by putting our hands over our eyes to the weaknesses of a female presidential candidate just so we have a skirt at the podium with the seal of the President of the United States.

That's how Halle Berry won an Oscar, and it's the driving force behind affirmative action. When you pick someone based on anything other than his actual qualifications, you are screwing up. Who wants a token for a president?

Posted by Sarah at 08:07 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

November 01, 2006


OK, let's give Kerry the benefit of the doubt here and assume he was trying to make fun of President Bush instead of the troops. So what's the joke then? Study hard, kids, so one day you will grow up to be...not as dumb as the President of the United States? What kind of joke is that? Don't parents usually urge kids to study so they don't have to flip burgers, not so they won't become flipping President of the United States and make a decision that über-liberal senators disagree with? Good lord, one would hope that a presidential candidate would show more respect for the office of the presidency than that. I think it's foolhardy to send the message to young people that the president is someone to mock and jeer. As if young people these days could get more disrespectful of adults; Kerry doesn't need to fuel that fire.

Not to mention that the joke doesn't work very well, considering Bush and Kerry got roughly the same grades in college. And Kerry's wife doesn't even know what chili is. Let's not call any kettles black here.


Who’s the real flunky? Someone tell Kerry it’s not military via RofaSix


Hahahahha. You HAVE to click on this photo from Iraq...

Posted by Sarah at 10:48 AM | Comments (7) | TrackBack

June 22, 2006


I happened to be flipping channels this morning and saw Santorum talking about the sarin shells that have been found in Iraq. It's not exactly a fat man and little boy pointed straight at NYC, but it's something at least worth talking about. The Fox and Friends people asked Santorum why Bush isn't shouting this from the rooftops, and he said that the White House is no longer interested in debating the reason we went to war in the first place. And the Fox people simply reamed the president. They said that he has a duty to discuss this because most of the country is still discussing it, and that since we as a country are paying for this war, we deserve to still talk about the reason it happened. They went off, and I think they have a point.

I personally believe that history will be on President Bush's side. No one liked Lincoln at the time, but now he's the only president many people can name, and I have a feeling that history could treat Bush similarly. But sometimes I get annoyed that he seems to be sitting back and letting history take her sweet time. 500 sarin shells isn't all we expected Iraq to have, but I think the American public needs to know it was found. Santorum shouldn't have to go on a crusade to present information that most Americans would be interested in hearing. I don't think it should be a "ha, we told you so" revelation, but the info should be put out there. I think those Fox people were right: much of the country is still quite wrapped up in the WMD debate, and they need all the facts in order to hold informed opinions. And this fact somewhat justifies the president; I have no idea why he wouldn't want to put it out there.

But what I don't understand could fill a warehouse.

Posted by Sarah at 08:13 AM | Comments (8) | TrackBack

February 08, 2006


My husband and I watched part of the Coretta Scott King funeral last night and were completely shocked at what a political rally it became. We missed what President Bush had said because we tuned in right as Pres. Carter started speaking. We were both disgusted at his references to wiretapping and Hurricane Katrina. And the icing on the cake was when he snubbed President Bush and wouldn't even shake his hand. He came off as a real asshole, pardon my language. Pres. Bush 41 was witty and uplifting. Pres. Clinton naturally was a compelling speaker, but we were both a bit surprised at how overtly religious his speech was. I always have the feeling that Pres. Bush is the same man in public as behind closed doors, but Pres. Clinton seems to be whoever is needed at the moment. I guess that's a normal quality for a politician to have, but I don't necessarily think it's an endearing quality. And then Hillary Clinton spoke: did anyone else think it was a bit creepy that she focused so much on Coretta standing by her man? Somehow I think it's weird to see the Clintons at a podium talking about strength in marriage. Maybe it's just me.

Overall the whole thing was weird and completely un-funeral-like. I did like what Pres. Clinton had to say, reminding us all that Coretta Scott King was a woman and not just a symbol. I thought the whole thing was a bit smarmy, using this poor woman's death as a chance to reach out to the black community, as if every politician there were saying "see, look at me, I care about black people."

And once again, President Bush has to sit there and smile while everyone blames him for war, racism, and poverty. The man is a saint to take so much abuse with such grace. I'd've punched Carter in the flippin' mouth.

Posted by Sarah at 10:04 AM | Comments (19) | TrackBack

December 02, 2005


I didn't see this particular reporter badger Laura Bush, but I did see some other reporter (don't remember her name or which network) annoy Mrs. Bush in front of the White House Christmas tree. I must say that Mrs. Bush is the height of class. This reporter asked her if President Bush is feeling nervous this Christmas because of Rove and Libby; Mrs. Bush deflected all of her family's complaints, saying that any Christmas is hard when we're at war and when loved ones are far. She refused to let the reporter bug her about politics and kept returning to praise of our troops and their families. I thought it was touching, but maybe Jessica Yellin took it as an invitation to talk Iraq and try to make Mrs. Bush look heartless. What a low blow.

Posted by Sarah at 11:21 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

September 05, 2005


Daily Kos said that Hurricane Katrina was worse than 9/11. I believe Charles Johnson is right in saying that some people want nothing more than to downplay what happened to our country that day. There's no comparison between 9/11 and a natural disaster.


Look into this man's eyes. He flew an airplane into a building in a calculated and deliberate attempt to kill as many Americans as possible. He worked hard, studied hard, and trained to attack the United States and leave death in his wake. He is a monster and a nothing.

To intentionally compare what he did on that infamous September morn to what happened in New Orleans is beyond my comprehension. Deliberate murder is not really the same as dropping the ball during a natural disaster. There will be time yet for a hundred visions and revisions once the chaos of Hurricane Katrina has subsided, but right now people need to focus more on working for the present and future instead of pointing fingers into the past.


Unfortunately, this poor man is once again being blamed for everything. The way some people are jawing, you'd think President Bush borrowed Halle Berry's white wig and conjured up a big storm to try to kill him some black people. Or that if he'd only signed Kyoto as zee Germans told him he should, the hurricane would've been avoided. News flash: President Bush is not to blame for everything bad that happens in this world.

Varifrank wonders why anyone in his right mind would ever, ever, ever want to be president. President Bush acts pre-emptively and he's blasted for not waiting on the UN. He waits for his advisors on Katrina and he's blasted for not acting quickly enough. Last time he was suppsed to drop My Pet Goat and run into the burning buildings himself. And then sit around and wait for Hans Blix for another few years. And apparently now he should've immediately flown down to Louisiana with "a hundred helicopters dumping concrete blocks, crushed cars, barges, and anything else they could get, into the breach" to save the day.

What happened in New Orleans is terrible: Mother Nature can be a bitch, no doubt. But the only thing that Katrina has in common with 9/11 is that neither of them were President Bush's fault.

As Ben Stein says, Get Off His Back.


Porretto also said it better than I could:

I applaud Dubya’s election, re-election, and his overall performance in office because I am persuaded, by everything I’ve learned about his conduct, both in full view of the cameras and in less well publicized settings, that he is an honest man. He says what he means, to the best of his ability to express it, and does what he says he’ll do, to the best of his ability to do it. The probability that his successor will be as honest and responsible is vanishingly small; consider the list of candidates for his position and see if you can disagree.

Yet this honest, sincere, remarkably generous and gentle man, who rose against savage opposition to the most powerful, most scrutinized, most pressured office on Earth, is subject to carping from all sides. Some of it is more vicious than any American public figure has ever endured. Some of it is based, not on his actual conduct, efforts, or results, but on his critics’ dislike of his priorities. And some of it, tragically, is emanating from the very persons who claim to hold those priorities themselves.

Posted by Sarah at 11:56 AM | Comments (22) | TrackBack

August 16, 2005


Our president grieves.

Posted by Sarah at 10:54 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack

August 03, 2005


Dear President Bush,

Please stop doing stuff and things that make me not like you.


Posted by Sarah at 03:14 PM | Comments (5) | TrackBack

June 13, 2005


My in-laws are visiting, so I haven't been sitting at the computer much. This weekend we went to Nuremburg and spent some time at the Dokumentationszentrum Reichsparteitagsgelande, which is a heck of a name for the Nazi Party Rally Grounds. To be honest, besides a few details, we didn't learn much at the museum, but I did get to see footage of Nazi rallies and photos of Hitler's adoring crowds. And walking through the museum, I couldn't help but think of the travesty that is modern comparison. Googling "Bush Hitler" brings 2,140,000 hits, including a website that tracks Bush=Hitler comments. ("Saddam Hitler" only brings a third as many hits, despite the fact that if we have to compare someone to Hitler, as all are wont to do these days, Saddam fits much nicer in my eyes.) And seeing things like this t-shirt and this German website about how much Bush is like Hitler make me absolutely sick. Even worse are the websites where people claim that Hitler was better than Bush.

As I walked through that museum, I grew angry at both the past and at the present. But time revealed the true horrors of 1930s Germany, just as I believe time will vindicate the early 2000s someday. I just wish we didn't have to wait that long.

Posted by Sarah at 09:02 AM | Comments (4)

June 07, 2005


I've been avoiding the computer because it makes me too sad, but I know Bunker would've been one of the first people to tell me to get back in the saddle. It's just depressing when I scan my list of links and momentarily think "oh, I wonder if Bunker's written anything new?" and then the lump in my throat returns. But something caught my eye that I wanted to write about, so I'm gonna cowboy up and keep blogging.

John Kerry is stupid.

Well, I mean, if everyone is going to say that President Bush is stupid, then they should say the same about Kerry because they had the same grades in college. Actually, it appears that Kerry's are maybe even a shade worse, so it's no wonder he didn't release these records until after the campaign.

If Bush is a moron, what does that make Kerry?


Kerry is also a dog.

Posted by Sarah at 05:48 PM | Comments (12)

February 21, 2005


Today is Presidents' Day. I love all of the men who have taken on the burden of leading our country, but today I especially think of the current president, the man who would rather be right than be popular.

Thank you, President Bush. I hope you have a great day.


Posted by Sarah at 08:56 AM | Comments (1)

January 31, 2005


Seems the mayor of Baghdad wants to erect a statue of President Bush. I could go for that. I think he deserves a statue that's not made of paper mache or burning in effigy.

Posted by Sarah at 08:08 AM | Comments (1)

January 20, 2005


There's lots of pissing and moaning in my office today about the inauguration. I'm really not in the mood for it today, and I'm getting really anxious to get the hell out of this office. I can tell how ready I am by the way I am forcing myself not to swear like a sailor.

This is the only thing I want to hear about that stupid inauguration today:
The 16th Second Inaugural

Posted by Sarah at 11:04 AM | Comments (2)


If you hate Bush, you're not supposed to spend any money today. Seems like today would be a good time to buy that mixer...

Posted by Sarah at 06:36 AM | Comments (1)

January 09, 2005


I have no idea why I started thinking about this today.

I remember exactly where I was when President Clinton admitted that he had lied about his affair. I remember it vividly because I was so sad. I felt so hurt and betrayed, not because he fooled around with a skank, but because he had shattered my trust in him. I know the words honesty and politician don't often go together, but more than anything I want our president to display integrity. President Clinton hurt my feelings when he admitted that he had outright lied, and it hurt as if he had looked me in the eye and lied to only me.

The real problem I have with this is that President Clinton can't even hide behind semantics. My mom and I had a lengthy argument a few years ago about the definition of "sex" as it applied to President Clinton. Mom was appalled to hear that the definition of sex has changed for young people. I think there was a major generation gap during the Clinton impeachment between the generation that thinks sex is anything that happens with your clothes off and the generation that thinks sex is only intercourse. Much to my mother's dismay, the strict definition of the word "sex" only includes intercourse for young people, many of whom brushed off President Clinton's lie because of semantics: to them, he really didn't have sex with Lewinsky. The problem is that that's not what he said. He said he didn't have "sexual relations" with her, so he can't even hide behind the new definition of sex. He flat out lied.

Den Beste wrote long ago about two types of liars, as proposed by Martin Gardner: "A strict liar knows the truth and makes statements which contradict it. A creative liar knows the truth and makes statements which are intended to deceive the listener." President Clinton wasn't even being a creative liar, masking his deeds in the vague definition of "sex". He was a strict liar, which is what made me so durned disappointed in him.

Which brings me to thoughts on the world's most frequently branded liar. A lengthy chunk from Den Beste:

There were a number of reasons why the question of Iraqi WMDs occupied such a central place in the political discussion, but there was never a correlation between the amount of attention paid to various arguments and their importance. And there are a number of other points that can be made about the entire question of WMDs and the process of deciding whether to invade. But what I wanted to talk about here was the specific question of whether Bush lied. Is it actually correct to refer to Bush's claims regarding Iraqi WMDs as being "lies"?

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that WMDs were the sole reason for the invasion, even though that isn't even remotely true. Let's further assume, for the sake of argument, that Iraq had indeed fully destroyed all its WMDs and all its banned equipment and that Saddam had no intention whatever of reviving its WMD development programs after the international political heat had been alleviated. Ignore for the moment the fact that there was nearly universal consensus that Iraq still had some WMDs, including UN agencies and international opponents of war such as France and sundry NGOs, not to mention the Clinton administration right up until Bush's inauguration.

So if Bush made the claim that Iraq still represented a threat because of its WMDs, did that make him a liar?

Not necessarily. It is not the case that everyone who utters a falsehood is lying. Someone can only be held to be a liar if they knew the truth at the time they spoke. A truth teller knows the truth and makes accurate statements about it. A strict liar knows the truth and makes statements which contradict it. A creative liar knows the truth and makes statements which are intended to deceive the listener. But there are several other possibilities; those three cases are not comprehensive. In particular, a person who is convinced that what they are saying is true is not a liar even if they're wrong.

Someone who is misinformed, and who genuinely believes that misinformation is not a liar simply because they repeat the misinformation or act on it. They can be accused of many things, such as gullibility, but not of lying.

All of the rhetoric about "lying" obscures the fact that this is an inductive process, not a deductive one, and words like "truth", "falsehood" and "lie" have to be interpreted entirely differently in the hazy world of inductive logic. As a practical matter, no one in the US government (or anywhere else) had conclusive evidence one way or the other about whether Iraq had WMDs or retained means and motivation to continue developing them once it became possible to do so. In fact, after we invaded evidence developed that even Saddam didn't truly know.

All the Bush administration had to work from were hints and calculations and imperfect reports from sources of less-than-ideal credibility; that's how it usually is in intelligence work. It's not crystal clear vision; you're usually trying to identify hazy shapes in the fog.

In other words, at the time Bush made the kinds of statements which my leftist friends have been referring to as "lies", what he had access to were reports which said that Iraq might still have any or all of those things, along with at least some degree of calculation of how likely it was.

And even if those reports and calculations were wrong, or if the calculated probability was low, that doesn't mean that acting on them was wrong.

The claim that Bush lied gets thrown around more than John Kerry's football. And I've often read in comments sections where lefties say that Bush hatred is nothing worse than Clinton hatred. I have a real problem with that statement.

I don't hate President Clinton, but he sure let me down. He made himself a strict liar based on his personal life -- things he was directly in control of -- as opposed to intelligence gathering or foreign policy. President Bush might have speculated incorrectly about WMDs in Iraq, but President Clinton knew damn well what he was doing behind closed doors. At the end of the day, that makes a big difference to me.

But President Bush is the world's biggest liar, and always will be. Sigh.

Posted by Sarah at 08:54 AM | Comments (6)

November 25, 2004


I'm also thankful for cowboys.

Posted by Sarah at 08:17 AM | Comments (2)

November 21, 2004


Reason #__ why I think President Bush is a good and decent man.

Posted by Sarah at 07:05 AM | Comments (3)

November 20, 2004


Only history can judge a president...

Posted by Sarah at 07:49 AM | Comments (0)

November 08, 2004


I've been getting more and more fed up with all the "reasons" President Bush won the election. Everyone who voted for him was supposedly a knuckle-dragging mouthbreather who only put down his Bible and klan robe long enough to vote for a chimp. I've been getting really irritated this week.

And then I read Deskmerc. Exactly.

Posted by Sarah at 09:59 PM | Comments (8)

November 03, 2004


My icing skills have definitely improved since the last cake -- it helps when you read the instructions and you make frosting instead of drizzle -- so this one is actually legible.


I decided to make a pro-Bush instead of an anti-Kerry cake when I saw how quickly Kerry conceded. I respect him for not dragging it out, and I actually feel sorry for him. He was a man who geared his whole life towards running for president one day, and I feel sorry for him that his dream never materialized. I'm relieved he's not our President, but I feel and respect his disappointment.

Arafat's fair game though.

Posted by Sarah at 08:05 PM | Comments (14)


Right now New Mexico has counted 94% of the votes, and Bush is sitting at 52%.
I'm preheating the oven...

Posted by Sarah at 08:43 AM | Comments (7)

November 02, 2004


Yes, James, I did have the unbalanced electric can opener last week. But my husband has so wonderfully distracted me that I actually said, "What happens tomorrow?" when he asked me last night if I was nervous. It feels good to have more important things to think about, like squeezing the life out of Day Four.

Tonight will come and go, and there may or may not be cake afterward, but regardless of what happens, the husband and I will still have Day Five together. Right now, that's a big comfort.

Posted by Sarah at 08:15 AM | Comments (1)

October 28, 2004


Dear President Bush,

I hope you're sleeping better than I have been lately. I bet you're about to OD on Tylenol PM! It doesn't help me much, so I lie in bed trying to think of anything other than 2 Nov, the Cardinals, or my husband. The Cardinals turned out to be a losing battle. I told my friend that it would just figure that the Cards would lose the World Series right when my husband gets home and he'd be in a really foul mood for the whole weekend! Hopefully seeing me after nine months can ease the pain...

I wish I could talk to you. You get such bullcrap thrown your way, and sometimes I worry about you. You won an award for best movie villan, which might be humorous if I weren't so naggingly sure that those people actually believe it. You get drawn as everything from Hitler to a special needs child, and if I feel the sting, I know you must too.

I just wish you could know that some of us out there really do care about you. We want you to win, because we think you've been a great leader in trying times. We want an aggressive leader who does what's right for the US and we've been behind you since 9/11. We're afraid of what happens if you don't win, but we're also slightly afraid of what happens if you do. There are some who have called for riots, lawsuits, and even for your assassination.

If you win, you have four more years of battle with the Islamobarbarians to look forward to. If you lose, you get a good nights sleep and the weight of the world lifted from your shoulders. I wish you could have both, but I'm afraid the former is more important right now. But with you as our president, both of us will sleep peacefully someday.

I wish you luck and tranquility in the coming week.
Get 'er done!!

P.S. The Cards may have lost, but Israel may win: is Arafat's death upon us? You know me...I'm baking a cake if it is!

Posted by Sarah at 06:45 AM | Comments (12)

October 27, 2004


Terrorists hope to defeat Bush through Iraq violence

BAGHDAD — Leaders and supporters of the anti-U.S. insurgency say their attacks in recent weeks have a clear objective: The greater the violence, the greater the chances that President Bush will be defeated on Tuesday and the Americans will go home.

Great. Thanks for giving them hope, Kerry/Edwards.

Posted by Sarah at 11:14 AM | Comments (11)


Slate is overwhelmingly supporting Kerry, but one writer conducted an experiment in empathy: he donned both Kerry/Edwards and Bush/Cheney gear and headed to where he'd find the most dissent. The result? Gee, what do you think?

Posted by Sarah at 11:01 AM | Comments (1)

October 26, 2004


Dear Blue 6,
You and I can both rest easy now: they finally got your absentee ballot today. Thank goodness I don't have to lie to you, which I was planning on doing if they didn't receive it! It's there and you're taken care of.
See you soon,

Posted by Sarah at 10:07 PM | Comments (0)


I knew there was something rotten in Denmark about that "separate realities" PIPA poll. I really liked the title, and I certainly agree that hardcore Bush and Kerry supporters live in separate realities. But once I started reading the report, I realized that the different realities broke down into Bush = deluded Kerry = right. Sigh. Whenever the report pointed out how dumb Bush supporters are for believing something, I found myself thinking that, depending on how it was worded, I would've answered the same thing. And that's the crux of the report: depending on how it's worded. Joe Carter leads a discussion of adjectives and Xlrq addresses the misleading questions in the poll. I firmly believe we live in separate realities, but this report did absolutely nothing to illuminate these differences.

Posted by Sarah at 07:30 AM | Comments (3)

October 23, 2004


Here's another story about my brother. Back in the day, he had a little 8th grade girlfriend who was new to town. She said her father was a doctor and that they were building a new home, and she and my brother would ride their bikes by the construction site. She said she was a catalog model and had made lots of money doing photo shoots. And none of it was true. She lived in a small house with just her mom and had never been a model. My brother was pretty freaked out when the truth came out.

I've never forgotten this girl; I think of her often when I wonder about people who lie. I wonder what made her say these things. We all tell white lies to avoid hurting people's feelings, and we may exaggerate the truth a bit to make a story more fantastic, but repeated fabrication and lies and shifting the blame is cause for concern. Did this little girlfriend get so wrapped up in the fantasy world that she didn't know she was a liar, or was she just trying so hard to get people to like her that she'd say whatever she thought they'd like to hear? Either way is frightening.

John Kerry, as far as anyone can tell, hasn't fired a shotgun at a bird in many years, if ever. While it is possible that he might nevertheless luck out and hit a goose, the odds are heavily against it. Yet there is something about Kerry that requires him to distort reality to fit his own conception of himself: he ran in the Boston marathon; he never falls down while snowboarding unless a Secret Service agent knocks him over; he can't stand to walk across a patch of tarmac without pulling out a football; when he threw out the first pitch at Fenway Park and it landed half-way to home plate, it was the fault of the National Guardsman who was supposed to catch it, because the Guardsman was nervous; he had the biggest buck in the history of Massachusetts in his sights but didn't pull the trigger. And now, he shot a goose. Only, where is it?

This would be an alarming personality trait even if Kerry's fantasies were limited to sporting triumphs. But the Walter Mitty candidate doesn't stop there. When a candidate for President makes up non-existent secret missions to Cambodia, testifies before Congress of "war crimes" of which, it turns out, he has no knowledge, and fantasizes support from foreign powers which will magically change their perceptions of their own self-interest if only John F. Kerry were President, Walter Mitty is no longer funny.

Posted by Sarah at 09:24 AM | Comments (4)

October 22, 2004


Once again, where's the character from Family Guy? "John Kerry is a great big phony!"

Posted by Sarah at 06:42 AM | Comments (2)

October 19, 2004


I'm still upset from earlier today. I tried to read about the laser beam and refocus, but I just couldn't do it. Part of the reason is because I'm worried about our country's laser beam.

I haven't allowed myself to get confident about the election. In fact, I'm pretty freaking scared. I don't care about what the polls say; I'm freaked out about what happens on 2 November. I keep thinking about what Whittle said:

I fear the consequences of abandoning personal responsibility. I fear the self-hatred and nihilism that grows among the pampered, the narcissistic and the uninformed. These are things to be feared greatly. They have brought down entire civilizations and led to dark ages that have cost this species very dearly. I think we stand at such a point today, and this election -- win or lose -- will not determine the outcome...although it might give us some indication of how sick or healthy we are at this pivotal moment in history.

I fear that my blog-reading has insulated me from just how sick our country is right now. I surround myself with informed people who understand that we're in a post-9/11 world, so I was completely taken aback when someone spouted DU-esque nonsense about how the war in Iraq is a distraction (oh wait, that's not just from the DU; the Democrat candidate says the same thing.) And I'm afraid that there are a lot more like that out there.

And I have seen the eternal Idiotarian hold my coat, and snicker,
And in short, I was afraid.

We need to win this election. I know our country has survived worse, but we are at a crossroads and we need to take the right path. I'm not confident at all that we will. I hope I'm wrong.

Posted by Sarah at 09:00 PM | Comments (5)


Awesome! If Bush is your man, you'll like When The Man Comes Around. (via LGF)

Posted by Sarah at 06:48 AM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2004


I've heard people scoff at the idea that the terrorists want Kerry to win. Well, here's interesting take on some people who have been listening to Kerry. (Thanks, Hud.)

Posted by Sarah at 06:55 AM | Comments (2)

October 14, 2004


Paranoid as I am, I called to see if our absentee ballots have made it to Missouri. Mine is there safe and sound; the husband's is not there yet, but it has further to travel. I'll call back next week for another update.

Posted by Sarah at 09:43 PM | Comments (0)


I'd give anything to go to a Wal-Mart.

Posted by Sarah at 01:26 PM | Comments (0)

October 11, 2004


A nuisance? A nuisance? Terrorism is a nuisance?
How could anyone in this country vote for this man?

Posted by Sarah at 10:46 AM | Comments (12)

October 10, 2004


As I was reading VDH's blurb about the debate, I had a thought. Kerry keeps repeating "I have a plan..."; I think he should switch over and go with "I have a dream...". Think about it: it's catchy, it's chock-full of symbolism, and it much better fits his ridiculous theories and vague projections about how the world would work under his presidency.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "I'm an internationalist. I'd like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Paris the sons of former neo-cons and the sons of former Iranian nuclear bomb makers will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood filled with allies from all different nations, and by all different nations I mean France and Germany. I have a dream that one day even the United States, a police state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice, not unlike North Vietnam was when I met with the Vietcong in 1971. I have a dream that my two children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the orangey color of their skin but by the content of their briefcases, which is where they keep their lucky hats. I have a dream today.

Posted by Sarah at 08:38 AM | Comments (6)

October 09, 2004


Heh. Pixy thinks a good indicator of who is going to win the election is the betting odds!

Posted by Sarah at 08:26 AM | Comments (2)


In the comments section below, Manny wrote the following defense of voting for Kerry:

With Bush it seems that we will get just more of the same. If you like that then I imagine you will vote for him. But with Kerry we may get something better. There are no guarantees but Kerry is certainly not the ogre of the negative campaign.

However, since the first debate, bloggers have been pointing out how Kerry's plans have already failed. Wretchard wrote about how The Global Test already didn't work for us, and CavX addressed the "allies at the table", Iran, and North Korea. I'm not sure I agree that we "may get something better", since Kerry's suggestions seem to be falling apart even before we get to 2 November.

Posted by Sarah at 07:52 AM | Comments (1)

October 08, 2004


Hud found a link to a round-up of property damage and threats by Kerry supporters. These are scary times, folks.

Posted by Sarah at 07:38 AM | Comments (3)

October 06, 2004


I find I'm irrationally afraid of my absentee ballot not making it to Missouri. I can't stop thinking about it. I worry that it's stuck somewhere inside the mailbox and won't get found until it's too late. The bad thing is that there's no way of knowing.

I don't think I ever told the story of how I was almost "disenfranchised" in 2000. I went to the voting place and went into the little booth, and I jacked up my ballot Florida-style. Punched it wrong. But unlike Florida I wasn't so dumb that I didn't realize it, so I stood there and tried to figure out what to do. Both the ballot and the sign on the inside of the booth said that if you make a voting error, you should destroy the ballot and return it to the polling people for a new one. So I emerged from the curtain ripping my jacked-up ballot and asked for a new one. And the volunteers started shouting. They used menacing words like "violation" and "irregularity" and reprimanded me for defiling the voting center. They asked me what on earth would possess me to rip up my ballot, and I calmly replied, "The sign you have printed on the inside of the booth." And then they refused to believe that the sign would say such a thing. I tried to get one of them to come in the booth with me to see it, but they weren't budging. They almost refused to give me another ballot, but finally they relented. I voted properly and then left, but I mentioned that they might want to change their signs since there obviously was a huge discrepancy in procedure. It was a mess.

Plus I voted for the wrong guy! I mean, I punched it right, but BOY would he have been the wrong guy!

Posted by Sarah at 08:52 PM | Comments (0)


Excellent post on why to vote Bush at Cold Fury (via Bunker). Taste:

Well, here’s why: because the choice isn’t between Bush and George Patton; it isn’t even between Bush and Barry Goldwater. The choice is between a man who, in the end, has made the right moves, if sometimes diffidently, and a man who has shown over a long career in the Senate that he is not just indifferent but actually hostile to the use of American military power in pursuit of American interests. The choice is between a man who, in the immediate aftermath of the most hideously successful terrorist attack in history, had the bedrock good sense and unabashed patriotism to be unable to conceal his anger, and a man who would have needed three polls and a focus group to tell him how he ought to feel about it in order not to discomfit and alienate his America-hating Lefty base. The choice is between a man who genuinely seems to like soldiers, respect their service, believe in their competence, and honor their intelligence and basic decency, and a man who underhandedly wriggled out of his own commitment and came home to slander them as butchers and latter-day “Jenjis” Khans.

Posted by Sarah at 06:47 AM | Comments (3)

October 05, 2004


This article, Troops in survey back Bush 4-to-1 over Kerry, jives with my husband's assessment of his own platoon.

By the way, the husband sent his ballot the other day. As long as the mail moves along in a timely fashion, the two of us will be squared away for 2 November.

Posted by Sarah at 07:54 AM | Comments (2)

October 03, 2004


CavX, one of the smartest fellas out there, weighs in on the debate. I did get to see it in a rerun here, and I agree with CavX's assessment. And I think Bush won. I just re-read the transcript. I don't care if the MSM networks are saying Kerry won, because in reality his answers were muddled and his thinking illogical.

Posted by Sarah at 07:59 AM | Comments (5)

October 01, 2004


I received two absentee ballots from the state of Missouri. One is a federal write-in ballot, which I received two months ago, and one has the actual bubbles you fill in, which I received this week. I don't understand why I got both of them. I wonder what would happen if I were a bad person and filled out both of them. Would Missouri catch the mistake? Would my vote count twice? Are there more people out there who received two ballots, people who don't have the "voting integrity" I have? Just wondering...

Posted by Sarah at 10:32 AM | Comments (7)


I'd like to wish Tony Blair a speedy recovery for his surgery. Hurry back, friend! We need you in this fight!

Posted by Sarah at 07:59 AM | Comments (1)

September 17, 2004


I read this long interview with John Kerry (thanks to this comments section), and I don't think I understand him any better. He naturally goes through a long list of reasons why the W stands for wrong, instead of answering the direct, completely un-vague question that was posed.

IMUS: What is this plan you have?

KERRY: Well, the plan gets more complicated every single day because the president...

IMUS: Try to simplify it for me so I can understand it.


KERRY: Well, Don, I realize that, but the fact is that the president is the president. I mean, what you ought to be doing and what everybody in America ought to be doing today is not asking me; they ought to be asking the president, What is your plan?

He rambles for a bit, and then the interviewer throws him a ba-zing:

IMUS: We're asking you because you want to be president.

Indeed. If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we'd all have a merry Christmas in Cambodia. But what are you going to do about it, Kerry? Stop saying what we should be asking the President and start explaining why we should vote for you. What would you do differently, and don't give me this bullcrap about bringing allies to the table. No single country has agreed to do anything differently, even if you're President. You criticize the President for "not having a plan to win the peace"; explain why you think the world will be more peaceful if you yank all the troops out. Explain it, please. Cuz last year you said

Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president.

More stuff from the interview:

IMUS: Did you read "Unfit for Command?"


IMUS: Did anybody on your staff?

KERRY: I have no idea.

IMUS: Why wouldn't you want to know what's in it? It's the No. 1 "New York Times," of course, it says nonfiction bestseller.

KERRY: Because they have right wing people to buy them in bulk, and that's what they're doing.

Can't possibly be individuals who want to search for the truth themselves rather than buying what CBS is peddling? It's gotta be Karl Rove buying books by the crate and turning them into fertilizer for Bush's secret cocaine stash. Please. You can't be president if you believe in a book-buying conspiracy. (By the way, none of these conspiracy nutjobs are mature enough to be president either.)

Here's a zinger of a question:

IMUS: Back in May of 2001 on "Meet the Press," you said you yourself have committed the same kinds of atrocities as thousands of other soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions. And my question, Senator Kerry, is, is there a difference between what happened in your case in Vietnam and what happened at Abu Ghraib, in that both were acts in violation of the Geneva Conventions?

KERRY: There is a difference.

IMUS: What is it?

KERRY: There is a difference. What I was referring to in that testimony was the general categorization of free-fire zones in Vietnam and the general categorizations of some of the weapons that were being used, which were in violation of the accords. We didn't learn that until we came home. I didn't know any of that while I was there. I didn't know any of that over there, nor did most soldiers.

That sounds mighty different from what he said before about Jengis Khan. That wasn't just weapons types, that was

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, tape wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the country side of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

Why can't we get a straight story out of this man?

IMUS: Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq -- any?

KERRY: Not under the current circumstances, no, there are none that I see.

But he just got done saying something that sounds different...

KERRY: Let me explain it to you. I felt in 1998, and I said that Clinton ought to have the power, the authority to use force, in order to force Saddam Hussein to have inspectors, to be able to disarm. The only way to get the inspectors in was to be tough, to have the threat of force and the authority to use force. I was prepared to use the force if he didn't do what he needed to do. But I warned the president, as did many people, take the time to build up the international coalition, don't rush to war, because the most difficult part is not winning the military part of the war; it's winning the peace. [emphasis added]

Kerry would've gone to war if "he didn't do what he needed to do." Who is "he"? Saddam, I guess. What did he "need to do"? "Have inspectors" and "be able to disarm". That's an extremely vague sentence, and it would be nice to know what exactly the last straw would've been for Kerry. What exactly would've made him decide it was time to go to war? What exactly would've made it too imminent for him?

What exactly is his platform?

Posted by Sarah at 09:29 AM | Comments (4)

September 16, 2004


I just heard part of John Kerry's speech to the National Guard, just the live snippet that the news played. In it he criticized the President, saying that 95% of the cost of the Gulf War was paid by our allies. That was shocking to me, so I looked it up. The two figures I found amounted to only 88%, so I'm not sure how he got 95%. But still, 88% is a big number. A closer look revealed that more than half of the cost was shouldered by Kuwait (makes sense) and Saudi Arabia. I'm not sure I want Saudi Arabia considered one of our "allies", as Kerry's speech classified them. Japan paid a big chunk of change in 1991, much appreciated, and Korea paid a bit. Germany forked over a bit more than $5 million. Appreciated too, but I'm not sure what point Kerry is trying to make today. He criticizes the President for not getting our "allies" to help pay in 2004 like they did in 1991, but France isn't even on the list. And isn't that really who we always mean when we talk about "getting allies on our side"? And would we really be happier with the current war in Iraq if Saudi Arabia were helping to foot the bill? I'm not sure I would be.

Posted by Sarah at 10:07 PM | Comments (4)

September 01, 2004


I can't get the link at C-SPAN to work, which is disappointing because I'd really like to hear Gov. Schwarzenegger's charming voice as he gives this speech. I'm with Lileks: I like him.


Kalroy's link worked. Heh. Arnold just said "girlie-men", and George H.W. Bush and I both cracked up!

Posted by Sarah at 07:29 AM | Comments (9)

August 31, 2004


I hear Rudy Giuliani was a hit. I can't watch the RNC here, so I have to read it, and I like what I read. And you know what else I like? I like having a president who's uncomfortable with the Queen of England and completely at home with a crew of construction workers. But maybe that's just me.


Thanks, NightHawk. It was even better to watch than to read.

Posted by Sarah at 07:49 AM | Comments (4)

August 30, 2004


Steyn says the same thing that I told my friend when we discussed stem cell research:

But [Bush at the RNC] will talk up successes in the war and remind us that, if we don't win it, the best prescription-drugs plan in the world isn't going to make much difference.

Posted by Sarah at 08:12 AM | Comments (5)

August 27, 2004


Long-time readers will know that nothing gets my blood boiling like some snotty intellectual calling average Americans stupid. They frequently do it to our servicemembers, which really ticks me off. And they do it all the time to our President. Nothing makes me madder than the audacity of a statement like this:

Does anyone in America doubt that Kerry has a higher IQ than Bush? I'm sure their SATs and college transcripts would put Kerry far ahead.

OK, well we all know President Bush's grades, since "Bush is dumb" is like sooo 2000. What are Kerry's grades, then? Can't Howell Raines find them and make a factual statement instead of resorting to bandwagon techniques?

I don't know what happens behind closed White House doors. I don't really care who's pulling most of the weight, be it Bush or Cheney or Rice. As a team, they're getting the job done. But, having absolutely no facts at my disposal, I'm not sure I want to poke at President Bush's IQ. What does IQ measure? Little picture games and mind puzzles and making connections and so on. I think President Bush might do quite well on a test of this nature.

Smarts isn't about memorizing and regurgitating, which is what the SAT and grades are about. Hell, I'm freaking awesome at that. I can play the school game like nobody's business, which is how you end up valedictorian and summa cum laude. But I'm slowly learning that playing school and playing life are completely different things.

Last night I had my second stats class. We learned variance and standard deviation, long formulas involving sigmas and x-bars and things that give most math-fearing people (the majority of the class) the heebie-jeebies. But I got the formulas right away. I figured out how to do the functions on the calculator right away. But then when I raised my hand and asked for how it applies to the real world, I could hear the panic in people's gasps. It's bad enough we have to plug in the frequency and take square roots, for chrissake, who cares what it all means! But I cared. I'm not taking stats just to finish a degree; I'm taking it because I want to know how it applies to the real world. And I could easily see how to plug in all the data, but I couldn't for the life of me figure out the relationship between the answer we got (18.2 cents) and the real problem (increase cigarette taxes in 27 states).

It's very humbling to realize you can't figure it out unless the teacher shows you how.

I've realized that I've an overabundance of capability, but no real ability to decipher relationships on my own. Give me formulas, give me numbers, and I'll give you all the answers, but ask me what it means and I'll stutter. And I get A's and had a relatively high SAT score. (I'm getting better at it through blogging, but I'm still stunned by the likes of Den Beste, Bunker, and CavX. I'll never get to that level.)

President Bush, and whoever else is working behind closed doors with him, can see the big picture. I don't care if he can plug the numbers into the calculator himself or if Cheney does it for him, as long as he continues to get 'er done. What indication do we have that Kerry sees the big picture? He obviously can't even make the mental relationship that voting for war and against funding makes you look like a jackass.

Look, I just don't like to call anyone stupid. I especially don't like it when Howell Raines -- who presumably thought Jayson Blair was pretty smart -- points his finger at the President. There's much more to smarts than grades in college; I'd say, to quote CavX, that

spending the last three years destroying terrorist training camps, breaking up terror cells in the US and abroad, uncovering a multinational nuclear proliferation ring, forcing belligerent North Korea to the bargaining table, cowing Libya into giving up its WMD programs and terrorist support, and winning two wars against terrorist-supporting Islamofascist dictatorships in the process

makes the President look pretty smart to me.


Instapundit says pretty much the same thing I said.

And Ann Althouse:

In any case, my questions about Kerry's intelligence do not arise solely from my inference that he had a poor academic record and low standardized test scores. My questions are also based on his exasperatingly convoluted and unclear manner of speaking. This has been excused as a propensity for "nuance" and "complexity," but could also be caused by a lack of mental capacity. It could also be willful evasion. I'd really like to know.

Posted by Sarah at 08:10 AM | Comments (6)

August 22, 2004


When the left-wing minions descended upon me a few months ago, spewing hatred and insults, it hurt. It hurts to be called names and told you're stupid and worthless. At that time, I found comfort in asking myself What Would Dubya Do? This is a man who has entire movies made about how worthless he is, yet he still manages to sleep at night. In terms of dealing with criticism and being self-confident, President George W. Bush is my personal hero. Whenever I feel down about myself, I remind myself that he deals with far worse every day.

I've read a couple of places today about how John Kerry is trying to get the FEC to shut down the SwiftVets ad. In my book, that makes Kerry about as spineless and weak-hearted as I am. I'm not a politician, so I'm allowed the luxury of feeling hurt when someone speaks bad of me; Kerry better get used to it if he plans on running the most hated country in the world.

I agree with LGF commenter William (found via Greyhawk) that this speaks volumes about Kerry's character.

While this is amusing and pathetic on the surface, what started as questions about Kerry's Vietnam era activity, Kerry has now turned into nothing less than a battle for free speech.

After Michael Moore's propaganda film, Bush never suggested it should be silenced.

After the moveon.org attack ads, Bush never suggested they should be silenced.

It's called freedom of speech (though Moore has moved perilously close to treason with his film while our troops are engaged in countries abroad).

Now Kerry seeks to silence free speech, because it's critical of his past.

For the blogosphere community, this has now moved past mocking the media for their absurdly obvious bias, and has become serious.

Kerry has changed the game with this move to shut down free speech.

If the media remain complicit now, they're not being complicit in smearing the SwiftVets, they're complicit in shutting down free speech -- the foundation of our society.

The "progressives" throw around labels of "fascism" and demonize John Ashcroft and Bush, but this has now become a battle for the country.

I don't think I'm exaggerating here. This has now become quite serious.

It is indeed serious. I grappled with this issue on my janky little blog -- whether to block certain commenters or close the comments section -- because I believe that people have the right to say what they think, even if it hurts my feelings. Shouldn't a presidential candidate in the United States of America believe in that as well?


More whining here. And Bunker writes about the media's fear.

Posted by Sarah at 09:31 AM | Comments (5)

August 15, 2004


I've come up with a few questions that I'd like to pose to military wives who think voting Kerry is in their best interest.

1. Kerry has recently been talking about reducing the number of troops in Iraq as soon as he gets into office. Would you support this measure, knowing that it might mean that your husband could be stretched even thinner and have less support and back-up on his missions?

2. Kerry has also said that the reduction of American troops will be made possible by the addition of foreign, especially Arab, troops. This question is rather hypothetical, given that to date no additional nations have agreed to send troops if Kerry were elected, but would you rather have your husband fighting alongside Arab soldiers instead of other Americans?

3. Kerry recently spoke out against the genocide in Sudan and said, "we must also start planning now for the possibility that the international community, acting through the United Nations, will be forced to intervene urgently to save the lives of the innocent." There's no question that the situation in Sudan is horrible, but would you want your husband to deploy there as part of a UN-led peacekeeping mission?

Yep, they're loaded questions. But the problem is that many wives hear the words "Kerry's gonna reduce the number of troops in Iraq" and they don't think about the fine print. A premature reduction of troops means less stability and more strain for those who are left there. Do we really want to vote for that?

Posted by Sarah at 10:56 AM | Comments (1)

August 12, 2004


To be honest, this is what I fear most. I don't even want to think about an assassination.

Posted by Sarah at 08:51 AM | Comments (0)

August 10, 2004


So Kerry would have gone to war anyway, lack of WMDs and all. Um, huh? Anyway, he lays out four questions he'd like President Bush to answer. In the remaining 15 minutes before I have to leave for work, I am going to try to give the short answers:

Kerry challenged Bush to answer some questions of his own -- why he rushed to war without a plan for the peace, why he used faulty intelligence, why he misled Americans about how he would go to war and why he had not brought other countries to the table.

1) It's my understanding that we really were surprised by the insurgency. OK, mistake. I understand that American intelligence relied too heavily on what Iraqi exiles said would happen. They were wrong. The military has been frank about their shortcomings though. We're trying to fix the problem, but unfortunately we've got the entire world breathing down our necks now. My husband said his unit gets shot at from mosques but they're not allowed to do anything back. That's a problem. Oh, and all that build-up at the UN? That's not a "rush to war".

2) There's a big difference between lying and being wrong. We had some faulty intelligence. So did Clinton. So did Putin. Heck, so did Saddam. We all thought he had WMDs. We were told he tried to buy yellowcake, which for all the hullabaloo turned out to actually be true. Intelligence is not an exact science, and we did the best we could with what we had.

3) "Why he misled Americans about how he would go to war" is an odd question. I've heard it phrased about why we should go to war, but never how. I don't quite understand the accusation here. Heh, maybe he means why Bush said there'd be shock and awe, when really it looked pretty lame from the TV set in my grandma's sewing room...

4) Oh the glorious "other countries" charge. Here's what I'd say to John Kerry:
Look, moron, even someone with a free geocities account appears to be better informed than you. Put down the guitar, shut off your "rap music", and take time to count the countries that support us in Iraq. And count the waving coalition flags on the Rottweiler's blog. Just because your precious France isn't on board doesn't mean we're alone.

I'll fill in links later [done, as of 0945]; I have to go to work. Unlike Kerry, I have to show up more than 30% of the time.



RWN answers the questions too, and says nearly the same stuff I said.

Posted by Sarah at 08:25 AM | Comments (1)

August 09, 2004


It seems John Kerry has just as much trouble remembering his words as his wife does. At least he didn't tell anyone to shove it though:

“John [Edwards] and I are going to put in place the principle, very simple: No young American in uniform should ever be held hostage to America’s dependence on oil in the Middle East.”

Kerry sat down with Stripes afterward to discuss the war, the stresses on the military and changes he would make.

Stripes: You said during your speech that never again would U.S. troops be hostage to a lousy energy policy —

Kerry: What I said is, I didn’t say never again, I said I don’t want them to be hostage.

Stripes: You think that’s what’s going on now?

Kerry: No. That’s not related directly to the oil … and I never suggested that it is.

Read the whole interview; I think Kerry sounds pretty silly, especially when he says his friends vouch for him. And note the Vietnam junk in the last statement.


Greyhawk's got lots more.

Posted by Sarah at 04:04 PM | Comments (2)

August 08, 2004


Grammar fun with President Bush, found via Pixy:

"Rarely is the question asked, is our children learning?" Let us analyze that sentence for a moment. If you're a stickler, you probably think the singular verb "is" should have been the plural "are," but if you read it closely, you'll see I'm using the intransitive plural subjunctive tense. So the word "is" are correct.

In my sentences I go where no man has gone before...I am a boon to the English language.

We often hear people make fun of the President for the way he speaks. Even my own students occasionally call him dumb. I remind them that most of them screw their past participles up royally, that they are 20-30 years old but still mixing up there/their/they're, and that anyone whose extemporaneous speech is transcribed word for word is going to make grammar mistakes. The measure of a man is not grammatical accuracy but the message that's being conveyed. I'd much rather hear this

Anybody who wants to harm American troops will be found and brought to justice. There are some that feel like if they attack us that we may decide to leave prematurely. They don't understand what they are talking about if that is the case. Let me finish. There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on.

than this

I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history. [emphasis mine]


The distinction:

In his landmark speech to Congress on September 21, 2001, George Bush told the world "you are either with us or against us". Today John Kerry told them "You are either with us, or against us---but if you're against us we'll be nice to you and hope you become our friend". Which guy would you trust your family's safety with?


Hilarious: Kerry said almost the exact same thing that Bush said. Of course, no one suggested he's a halfwit because of it (via Allah).

Posted by Sarah at 10:18 AM | Comments (12)


This is a must-read analysis of Kerry's intentions in Iraq: The Disengagement

And -- handful of oddballs I've talked to notwithstanding -- veterans and military families seem to support our current President (via Vodkapundit). I think it means that veterans and families want what's best for all of our servicemembers, and they don't seem to think Kerry's plan is what's best.

ALa71 writes about "adopting" a Soldier. My friends and I were talking about this the other day, about how strange it would be to not know someone downrange and to only know Soldiers who warblog. I said that, with everyone my husband knows, I have to monitor news about Tikrit, Mosul, Baqubah, and Najaf. I know more than enough people down there to keep me busy; it's hard to imagine that half of America doesn't know anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan. (And sometimes the ones who do only vaguely have a sense of "yeah, that one guy from my high school is in the Marines or something.") Around here, everything we do or say or think is somehow attached to the war; it's hard to imagine life otherwise.

Posted by Sarah at 08:14 AM | Comments (1)

August 05, 2004


I read about this the other day, but I just didn't post a link. Sure, Ms. Heinz-Kerry might not know what chili is, but whatever. Paris Hilton had never heard of Walmart, right? But the fact that the Democrat candidates faked going to Wendy's just for the photo op (which backfired majorly when the Marines rebuffed them) when they knew they had gourmet food waiting for them on the bus is just...low.

Where's that guy from Family Guy episode 36 to yell "You're a great big phony!" every time Kerry walks by?

Posted by Sarah at 08:59 AM | Comments (2)

August 02, 2004


Less than one week ago, I wrote my husband a letter about what I'd like to see for the future of our country, compared to what I think will really happen. I said at one point that I don't see the US getting rid of the IRS anytime in the near future.

Perhaps I spoke too soon. This made me sit up and gasp.

Posted by Sarah at 07:20 AM | Comments (1)

July 31, 2004


As commenter kdeweb said, "This is HI-larious."
Kerry tried to shake some Marines' hands...


And I love the caption Duane put on the photo!

Posted by Sarah at 02:06 PM | Comments (3)

July 30, 2004


Amritas pointed me to a Nelson Ascher post that I wish I'd seen yesterday.

All this to say that hearing day after day, reading hour after hour, watching minute after minute for months and months all the liberal media, that is, basically all the media telling me that Kerry will win, that Bush doesn’t have a chance is not only exhausting. It’s just natural that for a couple of minutes or even hours a week my rational defenses will be taking some rest, and if this happens repeatedly, the message about the inevitability of a Kerry victory will begin to grow roots in my brain. And this makes me afraid because I know we’re watching the most complete, worldwide, continuous media effort ever to influence an election. What the world media is doing is the most aggressive, savage campaign of carpet-bombing in human history.

I've succumbed to the carpet-bombing. Many people I know and bloggers I read have also succumbed. We're weary and dejected. I talked to a Soldier who just yesterday -- just yesterday -- found out that Kerry attended anti-war rallies after he came home from Vietnam. Just. Yesterday. The brainwashing the media has done is incredible, and it absolutely makes me want to cry.

My laser beam is in trouble. So is Ascher's, it seems. Nelson, we have to stay strong. We have to refocus. We have to Forget the Idiots Today, like you encouraged me to do on 9-11-03:

I also know I should avoid reading much today, because many, probably most things that are and will be published will make me even angrier. And the problem is not that I don't want to be angrier: I do want. The problem is that I do not want to waste a miligram of my anger on all the idiots who have been getting ready to show us how idiotic they are. We're at a point where to be too angry at, say, Chomsky and the BBC, Old Europe and ANSWER, second and third rate entertainers and academics is to give them a kind of victory. They deserve disdain. Anger needs to remain concentrated like light in a laser beam, we must direct it toward its rightful target: Islamofascism first and foremost. If we spend too much time getting mad at those who are but idiots we run the risk of forgetting, even if only for a second, that it is the Muslim/Arab religious fanatics who are the ENEMY. In a way, that's the idiots' main weapon: to attract a wrath that could be more usefully directed to the really dangerous enemies. Whenever we're not thinking about the Jihadists we are losing some very precious time. And anger.

We need to stay strong. I have so much anger for the media these days that it's starting to cloud my resolve. I need to refocus. That Soldier who just yesterday learned of Kerry's anti-war past got a list of links to follow. He's open to the truth, and he'll find it eventually. And maybe he'll tell a friend.

Posted by Sarah at 03:13 PM | Comments (24)


Many thanks to Bunker for pointing me in the direction of The Case for George W. Bush. I do not understand the gut feelings of distaste that many have for President Bush, for when I look at him I see a man who is sincere and down to earth. But despite Junod's revulsion, he manages to look past the ad hominem. The part that gave me chills:

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and historians today applaud the restraint he displayed in throwing thousands of American citizens in jail. By the middle of 2002, George W. Bush had declared two American citizens enemy combatants, and both men are still in jail at this writing, uncharged. Both presidents used war as a rationale for their actions, citing as their primary constitutional responsibility the protection of the American people. It was not until two years later that Congress took up Lincoln's action and pronounced it constitutionally justified. Our willingness to extend Bush the same latitude will depend on our perception of what exactly we're up against, post-9/11. Lincoln was fighting for the very soul of this country; he was fighting to preserve this country, as a country, and so he had to challenge the Constitution in order to save it. Bush seems to think that he's fighting for the very soul of this country, but that's exactly what many people regard as a dangerous presumption. He seems to think that he is fighting for our very survival, when all we're asking him to fight for is our security, which is a very different thing. A fight for our security? We can handle that; it means we have to get to the airport early. A fight for our survival? That means we have to live in a different country altogether. That means the United States is changing and will continue to change, the way it did during and after the Civil War, with a fundamental redefinition of executive authority.

Posted by Sarah at 01:46 PM | Comments (3)

July 29, 2004


The other night I talked to a group of NRA-belonging, terrorist-hating Soldiers who do not plan to vote for President Bush, and I lost all the wind from my sails. If they're not voting for President Bush, the die-hard capitalist right-wingers from Oklahoma, then who will? This week I've begun to ready myself for a Bush defeat, just to be emotionally prepared. To be honest, I'm disappointed that I'm not more optimistic, but I just see so many factors working against President Bush.

The president plays a major role in my life. Whoever he is, he will be my husband's commander-in-chief and will determine a lot about our life over the next four years. And he will be due the respect that his title deserves. As MAJ Winters said in Band of Brothers, "We salute the rank, not the man."

I therefore take Dean Esmay's pledge:

Now here is my interesting question: I've made myself some friends among conservatives by speaking this way. But I do find myself wondering: how many of you on the right will embrace such a philosophy if John Kerry should carry the election in November?

I don't want to hear why you think it won't happen. Indulge me: pretend it might. How many of you will have the patriotism to say, "I disagree with many of his policy directions, I do not think he is conducting our foreign policy in the right way, but I will do my best to get behind him and support him until elections come around next time?"

I'm genuinely curious. For that is the stance I intend to take. I will refuse to call him traitor, loser, liar, incompetent. He will be my President, my Commander In Chief, the Chief Executive of a great nation, elected by the will of a majority of the electors in these 50 great united States. So even if he does things I disagree with in conducting foreign policy, I will say, "I respectfully disagree with the President's directions, but I will do my best to express my dissent respectfully and hope that I am mistaken and that he has made the proper decisions after all."

That's my pledge. How many of you will take a similar one?

I will make that pledge, as I have already pledged before. But I also echo Bunker's dismay:

As long as Kerry, if elected, acts like a President I will support him as one. Too bad Dubya wasn't given that opportunity.


And it's a good thing I found out about this Vietnam video before he became president, so there's still time to laugh at what a douche he is! Seriously, it's been three hours and I'm still giggling.

Posted by Sarah at 10:55 AM | Comments (6)


(via LGF) I wish all those people who spent eight bucks and two hours on Fahrenheit 9/11 would spend 12 minutes watching the Kerry On Iraq Documentary. I heard one person say that Moore's movie made President Bush look incompetent; well, Republicans can put together a series of clips that makes Kerry look just as bad.


Apparently Kerry already put together his own movie, which makes him sound like a complete tool. I can only imagine what my husband would say if I asked him what he'd think of a soldier reenacting glory scenes for film. Cripes.

(My brother and I used to make fake documentaries about him as a basketball player, with me as the announcer and interviewer. That seems really dorky to me now, and we were 9 and 7 when we did it. I can't believe Kerry was doing these things when he was an adult.)

Posted by Sarah at 08:49 AM | Comments (1)


I can't find a script online, but this morning I caught a few minutes of Al Sharpton's speech at the DNC. He was talking about how he hopes people have learned this year that anyone can rise up from welfare or a broken home to run for President of the United States, and the crowd went wild.

How much money does John Kerry have again?

Posted by Sarah at 08:22 AM | Comments (0)

July 22, 2004


I consider Den Beste to be one of the keenest thinkers out there, so when he writes so confidently about the Bush campaign, it really boosts my spirits. This election is not only the first one I've followed closely, but it has a direct effect on my life. The president is my husband's boss, and whoever is elected will determine what my husband does for the next four years. With President Bush, I see continued efforts in Iraq, and Iran on the horizon. It certainly won't be an easy four years, but at least I know where we stand. With Kerry, I don't know what I see; I think he'd leave the troops in Iraq, but for how long? I see my husband roped into doing more of the UN's work around the world, being sent on "peacekeeping missions" if Kerry is president. That means instead of the fear of being killed by an insurgent, we can worry that he might get killed by one of his own teammates...

Wives around here seem to be more and more anxious to talk about the election; I keep finding myself roped into conversations with people who somehow think that if Kerry is elected, their husbands will come home from Iraq on Nov 3. If only it were that simple. I sorta fear the military wife vote this year, because so many of them will be voting with their hearts, hoping that a vote for Kerry is a vote for an exit strategy. I think they'll be sorely mistaken and disappointed with the result.

I hope Den Beste is right and the Bush campaign has a suckerpunch coming. I see a lot of ammo piling up that should be used (i.e. Sandy Berger, Joseph Wilson), so I hope President Bush really is waiting for the masterstroke. I don't want this election to be as close as I fear it's going to be.

Posted by Sarah at 07:56 AM | Comments (5)

July 15, 2004


Tony Blair is cool.

"No one lied. No one made up the intelligence. No one inserted things into the dossier against the advice of the intelligence services. Everyone genuinely tried to do their best in good faith for the country in circumstances of acute difficulty. That issue of good faith should now be at an end ... But I have to accept, as the months have passed, it seems increasingly clear that at the time of invasion, Saddam did not have stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons ready to deploy ... I have searched my conscience, not in the spirit of obstinacy, but in genuine reconsideration in the light of what we now know, in answer to that question. And my answer would be that the evidence of Saddam's WMD was indeed less certain, less well-founded than was stated at the time. But I cannot go from there to the opposite extreme. On any basis he retained complete strategic intent on WMD and significant capability. The only reason he ever let the inspectors back into Iraq was that he had 180,000 US and British troops on his doorstep ... Had we backed down in respect of Saddam, we would never have taken the stand we needed to take on WMD, never have got progress on Libya ... and we would have left Saddam in charge of Iraq, with every malign intent and capability still in place and every dictator with the same intent everywhere immeasurably emboldened. For any mistakes made, as the report finds, in good faith, I of course take full responsibility. But I cannot honestly say I believe getting rid of Saddam was a mistake at all."

(via Andrew Sullivan)

Posted by Sarah at 09:57 PM | Comments (3)

July 14, 2004


A 12-yr-old girl wrote a letter to the editor urging Americans to stand behind the President. She said that she doesn't agree with everything he's done, but he's our elected leader and we should give him the respect he's due and try to put ourselves in his shoes.

Smart kid.

Someone today decided to respond to the girl's letter (scroll to the second entry), beating the dead horse of Not Elected once again. This letter concludes with an absolutely ludacrous paragraph:

For the soldiers who are being shot at in Iraq, for freedom-loving citizens who see our country being turned into a police state, and for the 99 percent of us who haven’t benefited from Bush’s “tax relief” for billionaires, the best remedy is to relieve him of that stress, and his duties, on Nov. 2.

You go, man! Tell that 12 year old!

My husband's best friend said the other day that he's pretty much given up even reading the Stars and Stripes because of all the negative letters to the editor. That's a real shame.

Posted by Sarah at 04:07 PM | Comments (1)

July 10, 2004


Sometimes I wonder how I would be voting if there weren't a war on. I much prefer President Bush's personality to John Kerry's, but if 9/11 had never happened, might I vote differently? I have sometimes wondered about that hypothetical, until I read the MSNBC Bush vs. Kerry At a Glance. I have nothing on this list in common with John Kerry.


Forty Reasons to Vote for George Bush

Posted by Sarah at 08:37 PM | Comments (5)

July 06, 2004


Happy Birthday, President Bush!

Posted by Sarah at 02:07 PM | Comments (1)

June 09, 2004


I just found out that I work in one of the non-essential Federal offices covered under President Bush's memo for the National Day of Mourning in honor of President Reagan. That means I get Friday off of work. To be honest, I feel rather guilty about enjoying a vacation day a week after a President died. I feel like I should find something meaningful to do Friday to show my respect instead of just hanging around the house and knitting. I'll have to come up with something fitting.

Posted by Sarah at 11:53 AM | Comments (6)

June 06, 2004


My husband's phone call woke me up this morning at 0600, and he told me that President Reagan had died while I was asleep. The fact is I am too young to appreciate President Reagan. I was twelve when he left office, which is far too immature to understand the impact of a president. However, I will spend some time to day getting to know him -- too little, too late -- through the different posts over at Right Wing News today.

Posted by Sarah at 07:53 AM | Comments (0)

June 03, 2004


The worst name President Bush gets called is Hitler. The second worst is Liar. I started thinking last night about how the many people who hate Bush often hate him because they say he's a liar. He lied about WMDs. He lied about his military record. He lied about the plastic turkey. He lies.

I find this odd because some of the most vocal people on the Left shouldn't call that kettle black. It has been shown many times that Michael Moore's movies and books are full of lies and misleading information. The singer Moby has advocated lying in order to trick people into voting Democrat, and the good folks at Democratic Underground took it one step further (one example: falsely report Republicans in your area for tax fraud). And recently Howell Raines offered John Kerry some advice for winning the election: lie.

What does this mean in terms of campaign message? It means that he must appeal to the same emotions that attract voters to Republicans - ie greed and the desire to fix the crap-shoot in their favour. That means that instead of talking about "fixing" social security, you talk about building a retirement system that makes middle-class voters believe they will be semi-rich someday. As matters now stand, Kerry has assured the DLC, "I am not a redistributionist Democrat."

That's actually a good start. Using that promise as disinformation, he must now figure out a creative way to become a redistributionist Democrat. As a corporation-bashing populist, I'd like to think he could do that by promising to make every person's retirement as secure as Cheney's investment in Halliburton. But that won't sell with the sun-belt suburbanites. Not being a trained economist like, say, Arthur Laffer, I can't figure out the exact legerdemain that Kerry ought to endorse. But greed will make folks vote for Democrats if it's properly packaged, just as it now makes them vote Republican, and in terms of the kind of voters Kerry must win away from Bush, I think the pot-of-gold retirement strategy is a way to work. Forget a chicken in every pot. It's time for a Winnebago in every driveway.

I just find it amusing that the thing many claim to hate most about President Bush is the thing they advocate when it suits their agenda.

Posted by Sarah at 02:35 PM | Comments (4)


The two best paragraphs in the President's remarks at the USAF Academy:

For decades, free nations tolerated oppression in the Middle East for the sake of stability. In practice, this approach brought little stability, and much oppression. So I have changed this policy. In the short-term, we will work with every government in the Middle East dedicated to destroying the terrorist networks. In the longer-term, we will expect a higher standard of reform and democracy from our friends in the region. (Applause.) Democracy and reform will make those nations stronger and more stable, and make the world more secure by undermining terrorism at it source. Democratic institutions in the Middle East will not grow overnight; in America, they grew over generations. Yet the nations of the Middle East will find, as we have found, the only path to true progress is the path of freedom and justice and democracy. (Applause.)

And later:

As we fight the war on terror in Iraq and on other fronts, we must keep in mind the nature of the enemy. No act of America explains terrorist violence, and no concession of America could appease it. The terrorists who attacked our country on September the 11th, 2001 were not protesting our policies. They were protesting our existence. Some say that by fighting the terrorists abroad since September the 11th, we only stir up a hornet's nest. But the terrorists who struck that day were stirred up already. (Applause.) If America were not fighting terrorists in Iraq, and Afghanistan, and elsewhere, what would these thousands of killers do, suddenly begin leading productive lives of service and charity? (Laughter.) Would the terrorists who beheaded an American on camera just be quiet, peaceful citizens if America had not liberated Iraq? We are dealing here with killers who have made the death of Americans the calling of their lives. And America has made a decision about these terrorists: Instead of waiting for them to strike again in our midst, we will take this fight to the enemy. (Applause.)

Read the whole speech if you didn't get to see it on TV. It says many of the things we bloggers have been waiting for the President to spell out.

Posted by Sarah at 07:29 AM | Comments (1)

May 29, 2004


Charles Johnson points out a very interesting interview with the President. The part I liked the best:

A president shouldn't worry about how history will judge him. I'll never know. I'll know how short term history will judge me, if I'd ever read the editorial pages I'd figure it out, because they're the ones writing the history. But when we try to do big things—accomplish big objectives—whether it be cultural change, or … the struggle we're in—it's going to take a while for history to really judge the accomplishments of a president and the true impact of a presidency. If you're doing little things, then maybe 20 years from now we'll be able to figure it out … But with big things it's going to take awhile. And so when you hear this thing about, "Well he's worried about his standing in history." I'm not. And most short-term history will be written by people who didn't particularly want me to be President to begin with.

I also very much enjoyed the end of the interview when he talks about how the war is affecting him personally. Read it if you have time; it's a window into the personal life of the President.

Posted by Sarah at 06:35 PM | Comments (1)

May 09, 2004


I hate that sneaky #@$%&#$ Kerry.

Posted by Sarah at 02:23 PM | Comments (0)

May 07, 2004


I love the President.

Over on RWN there are four stories about what kind of man President Bush is. I know some people in the blogosphere are reluctant Bush supporters; I however genuinely like the man. I don't agree with him on everything -- religion plays a much bigger role in his life and his politics than in mine, and I disagree with some of his stances on issues (marriage amendment, stem-cell research, etc) -- but I truly like him as a person and as a President despite our personal differences.

When I read about how he reacted to a child whose mother died in the WTC and a woman who whispered that she prays for him, I can't help but think of what a good man he is. He cares. He has the weight of the world on his shoulders -- he has ordered our servicemembers to go to Afghanistan and Iraq and die for their country, while the rest of the world hates him with every breath they take -- and yet he stops to comfort someone else who needs it.

Can you imagine for a moment what it must be like to be President Bush? Knowing that everyone around the world hates you, that they burn you in effigy and carry posters that liken you to Adolf Hitler? Knowing that everyone thinks you're too stupid to be President, too incompetent to be trusted, and too big of a liar to listen to? Knowing that servicemembers are dying because you are trying to do what was right for our country, and all anyone can focus on is WMDs and imminent threats? Den Beste complains that his readers won't see the forest for the trees; how must President Bush feel knowing that he's trying to make the world a safer place in the future while so many people are harping on the details?

And of course with my love for the military I'm especially touched by the two stories about President Bush and soldiers. The first shows him jogging with a SSG who lost a leg in Afghanistan; the second finds him saluting a wounded LTC in the hospital.

I cry nearly every time I read a story about a servicemember's death; I can only imagine how much it affects the man who made the decision to send them all to the war in the first place. I sometimes can't sleep at night if I'm worrying about being a good teacher; I can't even believe President Bush gets any sleep at all. I really feel for him: he has the hardest job in the world.

I love him. He's my President.

Posted by Sarah at 11:16 AM | Comments (5)

April 15, 2004


I saw an AP article with the intriguing title Iraq War Proves Thorny Issue for Kerry. What struck me was this unrelated paragraph towards the end:

During his day on campus, Kerry promoted his plan to give a free college education to students who agree to public service. He said he would pay for it using $13 million that banks earn for issuing government-backed student loans.

Huh? So I decided to check it out. First I found a little more info in the original article from Iowa:

Kerry proposed the "Service for College" initiative to help make college affordable and strengthen America's security. According to this initiative, for two years of service to the United States, every young person can earn the equivalent of the state's four-year public college tuition. Students could also get two years of college tuition in exchange for one year of service.

"It is great because it offers tuition to students and at the same time helps out the whole country by getting students involved in service like AmeriCorps, Peace Corps or the military," Schoenthal-Muse said.

We already have that for the military: it's called ROTC. Still not satisfied that I understood exactly what Kerry is proposing, I went right to the link at his website.

Now, I was a little disgusted when I read the opening paragraph

On September 11th, 2001, America experienced the most terrible and deadly attack in its history. Yet, President Bush's response was to call on Americans to wait in long lines at airports, go shopping, or wrap their windows in plastic.

which has nothing at all to do with education, but somehow Kerry ties it in to making our nation stronger by calling on young people to get into public service. I don't know what that has to do with 9/11 or the jab at Bush, but whatever.

So I finally got to the pdf file of his proposal, and I see that he's offering

a simple deal to hundreds of thousands of America's young people: If you will serve for two years in one of America's toughest and most important jobs, we will pay for four years of tuition at the typical public university. Young people will also be able to use their educational awards to pay off student loans if they have already finished college or to enter job training, start a small business, or buy a first home.

Forget for a moment the big question of where the money will come from to implement this plan and focus on some fine print. My big question is whether you get a salary while you're doing your two years of service. Are those two years done for no money and then you just get tuition at the end, or do you make some sort of salary for the service in addition to the college tuition? That's a big difference, and it's not addresed.

If you're working and making a salary for two years, plus you get free college, then that's a lot of money that has to materialize out of nowhere. I'm nowhere near competent in economics or business (wish the husband were here), but this sounds fishy to me.

Does anyone else understand how this could work?

Posted by Sarah at 02:45 PM | Comments (4)

April 05, 2004


I've said before that I think many on the Left use the empty Support Our Troops claim to soften the blow when they rally against President Bush. (Others just say what they really mean.) Most of the time I doubt their sincerity, because you can't fully support the troops without understanding them. So I wasn't that surprised when I found this today on LGF:

Sometime overnight, someone used yellow spray paint to write “Kill Bush” on a section of the memorial where names of local veterans are displayed on a sloping wall. The same slogan, along with others, was repeated on the back of the memorial.

A lot of people will do whatever it takes to get their point across, even if it comes to vandalizing something as significant as a veteran's memorial. As long as word gets out that Bush is evil. I've come to expect this from the Left, and it really makes me sad.

Comments of some others who stopped by the memorial Saturday morning are unfit for publishing in a family newspaper.

I wish I could have met and talked to those people.

Posted by Sarah at 07:43 AM | Comments (6)

March 30, 2004


No time to blog, but I was flipping through the paper at work this morning, and an editorial caught my eye; naturally it's on what a horrible man President Bush is. There was one paragraph that finally made me say ein Minuten bitte:

When he focuses on human embryos, he speaks of his obligation to foster and encourage respect for life, but when respect for human life gets in the way of his wish to strike back at those he considers enemies of the United States, he is willing to bring about the deaths of thousands of innocent human beings. These are not the actions of a person of principle.

That's unfair. We all have conflicting values that depend heavily on the situation. I don't support indiscriminate killing, but I do support taking a life under certain circumstances. That sure doesn't mean I lack principles, it just means that my principles can't be summed up and contrasted in one small paragraph. It's completely unfair to write an editorial saying the President has a "meandering moral compass" when everyone has nuances in their value system.


My ein Minuten bitte has caused some wrinkled brows. No, it's not proper German; it's a line from Eddie Izzard's stand-up routine about Martin Luther. We use it a lot in our house here, as well as the Simpsons psuedo-German quote Das Phone ist eine nuisance phone! and the Family Guy's Du werdest eine Krankenschwester brauchen!

We love fake German.

Posted by Sarah at 09:17 AM | Comments (8)

March 16, 2004


I told my mom last night about how Oda Mae's vote is going to cancel out my co-worker's vote in the November election, and apparently my mom is going to be doing some cancelling-out of her own. Today is the Illinois primary, where my mother will be voting Al Sharpton. Hysterical. If Democrats wanna play anyone-but-Bush, then my mama will give them a taste of anyone-but-Kerry. What a little saboteur...

Posted by Sarah at 07:13 AM | Comments (1)

March 15, 2004


I was thinking about the annoying conversation between my co-workers as I was cooking my delicious cow-on-a-bun for dinner. I keep my mouth shut all the time at work. Despite the fact that we're on a freakin' military post and people around here should value and respect the USA, I never talk about politics or things that I think aren't good office talk. I respect my German co-worker and don't want to make a fuss. But do they even consider for a moment that maybe I'm not turning cartwheels at the thought of John Kerry? Nope. Completely unprovoked, out of the stinkin' blue, my officemate says, "Do you think Bush already has Bin Ladin?" Immediately, without taking a breath, I answered with a firm "no." To which the other officemate supplied a "yes." I looked at both of them and said, "You can't really be serious?" and they said that they were, that they had heard that this might be true. They heard it, like it's on the same level as rumors about whether Johnny made out with Susie over the weekend or whether we're getting a Subway in the old Bookmark building here on post. I looked at the American co-worker and said, "Do you really have such little faith in your own government?" and he said, "I do if Bush is in charge." And that was the end of the conversation.

I have never brought up politics in our office, and I've made it a point not to say anything unless asked a direct question, but they have to be warming up to the idea that I'm not a Bush-hater. I already know that they are both extreme Bush-haters; in fact, my one co-worker who is a German with American citizenship through marriage, and who has never lived in the US, is going to register to vote for her very first time ever just so she can vote against Bush. (That really pisses me off.) I am just waiting for the day that someone asks me outright who I'm voting for.

So while I was cooking my beef, I started thinking about how many DVDs you'd have to offer me to vote for Kerry. The number is much much higher than how many I'd give to talk to my husband. I can safely say that if someone offered me $100 to vote for Kerry this year, I would turn it down. So I raised the bar in my mind: would I take $1000 to vote for Kerry? In my janky little part-time job, I make roughly $1000 per month (oh god that's ridiculous for someone with a Masters Degree.) Would I give up the chance for an extra month's pay to vote Kerry? You bet your sweet bippy. I would sacrifice one month's pay to have an extra four years of President Bush instead of Kerry.

Wait til my co-workers hear that one.

Posted by Sarah at 08:07 PM | Comments (6)

March 10, 2004


In a weird twist of irony, my dislike of Kerry is reaching bushian proportions. The thought of Kerry becoming president both scares and repulses me, which I imagine Bush does for many other people. But at least I can point to concrete reasons why I vehemently oppose Kerry the Waffler for president, like this account of Kerry supporting unilateralism in Iraq...back in 1997 before Hitler, I mean Bush, was at the wheel. For pete's sake, Kerry, this is the age of the internet. It's so easy to find what you said before; you'd better start being consistent.

Posted by Sarah at 07:38 AM | Comments (8)

March 04, 2004


OK, Lileks, OK. I won't sit this one out. You're right.

Posted by Sarah at 08:14 AM | Comments (5)

March 03, 2004


President Bush and Chancellor Schroeder just met, and David compares the President's greeting from 2001 to this significantly colder recent one. He also found a shockingly honest interview with David Frum. My favorite exchange:

Frum: I have studied the European press. We had exactly three good days after the 11 of September.

Interviewer: And shouldn’t you ask yourself why it is so?

Frum: No, the Europeans should ask themselves that. You were good at crying at the graves of the dead Americans. But when it came down to us Americas feeling threatened by Islamic fanatics, then as now, that was already too much starting in December 2001. And then these unspeakable books turned up on the bestseller lists in France and Germany, these conspiracy theories surrounding the 11 of September. That says quite a lot.

Posted by Sarah at 08:35 AM | Comments (1)