Posts Tagged ‘president’

Yesterday, Aaron Burr… Err, I mean Dick(head) Cheney endorsed John McCain for President. This is a very unfortunate endorsement for John McCain to receive from the worst Vice President since Aaron Burr.

First, they really expected a Bush supported emergency bank bailout plan to just walk down the isles in the House. I’m sorry, but hasn’t the Bush administration been talking about the strength of the economy for the last several months? Years even? Given that they had their heads up their asses or were completely lying about the situation, why should be believe in any urgency about the bailout. Seeing as how they were completely wrong about the state of the economy for at least the last 18 months (the largest bank in the world – WAMU – doesn’t fail overnight folks), why are they suddenly right about the economy?

Then, this morning I read this article about a large slide in the manufacturing index. This should have been a no-brainer. If businesses can’t get money from their banks, they tap their other resource for capital: inventory. It’s a pretty simple business concept. Sell inventory and turn it into cash. Most businesses that sell products operate like this. Somehow, this is a foreign concept to the folks on Wall Street? Of course, in normal economic conditions businesses reinvest that revenue back into inventory. But if your bank is holding you by the gonads, you don’t buy more inventory. You keep the cash.

Good thing the fundamentals of our economy are strong.

Today, the Bush Administration announced their new plan to help protect the environment. Since all three Presidential candidates are addressing growing environmental concerns, George W. Bush made the following announcement:

The Democratical candidates all have their environmentalistic policies that they believe are best for America and our planet. Unfortunately, these plans are highly flawed and don’t address the American workforce. This is why my administration is taking critical actions to exemplify my leadership on the the environment.

Effective immediately, we are going to slow down the economy considerably. See, with fewer people with jobs or employment situations, there will be a reductionation of driving, requiring fewer fossil fuel consumptions. This will also reduce the demand other goods and services that are bad for the environment, like flying airplanes.

Speaking of which. I’m going to go on vacation. But I won’t be traveling for this vacation. I’ll still be sitting in the White House, reading papers and staring at the wall.

When asked how this policy change was any different than his existing policy, Bush deferred to his Press Secretary who had no comment.

What do the Clintons and the Bushes have in common?

Besides having been the only two families to reside in the White House for the last 20 years, they have an additional quality that is unfolding in front of our eyes.

George W. Bush lost the 2000 popular vote, and it has been argued that he even lost the electoral vote if recounts in Florida were taken into account. There are thousands of articles, blogs, etc. about how the Bush family stole the election of 2000. Heck! There was even a movie about it.

It is amazing how history is prone to repeat itself when unchecked power is at play.

With Hillary Clinton standing on the verge of destroying our American political system, we should all wonder if Michael Moore with produce Fahrenheit 2008.

According to James Carville, Hillary is Jesus. So, there’s a good chance it might happen then.

BTW, Richardson might as well have cited my blog about why Hillary can’t beat John McCain in his rebuttal on Fox News.

How many Families have been running the United States over the last 20 years?

I’ll give you a hint: It’s more than 1 and less than 3!

Folks, the real reason to be concerned with Hillary Clinton being president has nothing to do with what her policies may or may not be. For God’s sake, the first George Bush promised “no new taxes” and that sure didn’t happen!

Plane and simple… we’ve gone from a two party political system to a two family political system: The Bushes and The Clintons! What’s the point of having a democracy when we make ourselves a monarchy? Well, I guess biarchy would be more like it?

For the past 20 years, we’ve had the same two families at the head of this country. If you want to include the power that the first George Bush had as Vice President, make it 28 years. For me, that’s almost my entire life. And there are even talks about having Bush’s brother run in 2012. Gimme a break already!

Enough is enough. No more John Adams garbage. No more Clintons. No more Ws or HWs or any other Bush for that matter. We have a democracy here. Let’s start using it!

This morning, I was browsing through the headlines on Rueters.com. After reading about how Obama is all talk and no action and how Hillary is in the political fight of her life, I couldn’t help but read about the Tokyo marathon runner who solves the mystery of his chest pain: bleeding nipples and not a cardiovascular issue.

HUH?

Yes, bleeding nipples. This was a mystery? Apparently, he attributes it to chafing and not excessive titty twisters before the race.

What does this have to do with a better future? Well, one could argue that Brian Jones will certainly be a little perkier after his marathon, but the better future was part of a Rueter’s survey:

Growing confidence in the future and slightly warmer views of President George W. Bush and Congress put Americans in a better mood this month, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday.

… Approval ratings for Bush climbed to 34 percent from 31 percent last month, and positive ratings for Congress inched up from 14 percent to a still-low 17 percent.

I’m feeling optimistic about the future. Bush signed a good stimulus package. More people are watching The Big Idea with Donny Deutsch. The Federal Reserve is finally waking up… Then another article catches my eye: LIBERAL INTOLERANCE:

The proportion of Americans reporting they feel less free to speak than they used to climbed from 13 percent in 1954 to 24 percent in 2005.

Guess they haven’t been reading many blogs lately. The first comment I received on my post about the ultra-boring two hour infomercial for Ford and Microsoft (aka Knight Rider) was the F-bomb. The only comment I received about the Bush Stimulus package being the next Big Idea was a tirade by a New Yorker that was longer than my post and didn’t address the point of my post.

Doesn’t seem like a lack of self expression is really present. I think the flaw with James L. Gibson’s study is how subjective it is to interpretation. For example:

The proportion who agree that “all people feel as free to say what they think as they used to” dropped from 56 percent to 43 percent.

Feeling “free to say what they think”? What exactly does that mean? Sounds like a personal problem.