January 19-21, 2009
Jan 19 03:02 Were We Hated Worldwide? Or Was That Another Media-Perpetuated Myth? Jan 19 14:04 How Big Will This Stimulus Package Be? Jan 19 19:17 What a Difference a Year Makes Jan 20 04:25 Reps. Brod, Thissen Reform Hinges on Tax Incentives Jan 20 14:49 Trouble In HopeAndChangeLand? Jan 20 21:07 Ritchie Reaps Recount's Rewards Jan 21 04:24 Hollywood's Half-Hearted Americanism Exposed
Were We Hated Worldwide? Or Was That Another Media-Perpetuated Myth?
Since 2004, Democrats have told us that the world hates the United States. When they said that, they usually said that we were hated because of President Bush's cowboy image and his unilateralism. As President Bush prepares to leave office, things are seeping out that suggest that the United States wasn't hated. It appears that President Bush wasn't as hated as Democratic politicians would have us believe. The latest proof comes from the Dalai Lama :
The Dalai Lama, a lifelong champion of non-violence candidly stated that terrorism cannot be tackled by applying the principle of ahimsa because the minds of terrorists are closed.Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry and almost every other Democratic heavyweight not named Joe Lieberman has criticized President Bush's foreign policy. At least, that's what they've done until they've been placed in a position of responsibility.
"It is difficult to deal with terrorism through non-violence," the Tibetan spiritual leader said delivering the Madhavrao Scindia Memorial Lecture here.
He termed terrorism as the worst kind of violence which is not carried by a few mad people but by those who are very brilliant and educated. "They (terrorists) are very brilliant and educated...but a strong ill feeling is bred in them. Their minds are closed," the Dalai Lama said. He said the only way to tackle terrorism is through prevention.
The head of the Tibetan government-in-exile left the audience stunned when he said " I love President George W Bush ." He went on to add how he and the US President instantly struck a chord in their first meeting unlike politicians who take a while to develop close ties.
"I told him 'I love you but some of your policies I oppose'," said the spiritual leader to a loud round of applause from the audience which included Rahul and Priyanka Gandhi, Election Commissioner Navin Chawla and several ministers, diplomats and artistes.
They've criticized President Bush until they vote for renewing the Patriot Act or ending the Iraq War the minute they step into the Oval Office or until their supporters tell them to shut Gitmo ASAP. That's when they start acting like President Bush.
That isn't news.
What's news is that the Dalai Lama has just exposed the Democrats' Bush-hating ways. He's essentially said that it isn't possible to contain terrorism. He's essentially said that it isn't possible to negotiate with terrorists and the nation-states that support them.
Finally, he's also said that the terrorist masterminds aren't poor people who've been hoodwinked into blowing themselves up. They're rich, well-educated people who talk others into blowing themselves up.
Posted Monday, January 19, 2009 3:05 AM
No comments.
How Big Will This Stimulus Package Be?
The federal stimulus package that the Minnesota DFL has built their economic plan around is being put in rather stark terms by House Republicans. One Republican who's speaking out about it is Minority Whip Eric Cantor. Here's what Rep. Cantor has written about it:
Specifically, we want to keep the stimulus bill, as well as all other future economic "rescue" measures, limited in scope and transparent.Rep. Cantor wrote that he agrees with President Obama that the bill's content should be transparent:
Our country has no other choice. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) issued a sobering report that this year's deficit will likely climb to over 8 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, or $1.2 trillion. That's higher than at any point since World War II, and those figures don't even account for the forthcoming stimulus.
Such heavy borrowing runs the risk down the line of rampant inflation, which scares away foreign capital while making the purchasing power of the dollar weaker for American consumers.
Second, Democrats have to live up to President-elect Obama's vow for "unprecedented transparency." The GOP welcomes and strongly encourages the president-elect's idea to post all contents of the bill online for the American people to judge.I suspect that Congressional Democrats will balk at that based on this information from Minority Leader John Boehner's office (H/T: Powerline ):
A Dozen Fun Facts About the House Democrats' Massive Spending BillNewt's been making the point that there's other pork currently in the legislation that must be termed poke. He said that one appropriation in the bill is for building an organized crime museum in Las Vegas. Another appropriation is for building 2 new hotels in Harrisburg, PA. Newt is quick to point out that he was born in Harrisburg and that there isn't a shortage of hotel space in the city. By Newt's estimation, building 2 hotels in Harrisburg when there's ample hotel space might force other hotels out of business, creating at best a job shift, at worst a net job loss.
1. The House Democrats' bill will cost each and every household $6,700 additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.
2. The total cost of this one piece of legislation is almost as much as the annual discretionary budget for the entire federal government.
3. President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save three million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $50,000 a year.
4. The House Democrats' bill provides enough spending, $825 billion, to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.
5. $825 billion is enough to give every person living in poverty in the U.S. $22,000.
6. $825 billion is enough to give every person in Ohio $72,000.
7. Although the House Democrats' proposal has been billed as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, in actuality only $30 billion of the bill, or three percent, is for road and highway spending. A recent study from the Congressional Budget Office said that only 25 percent of infrastructure dollars can be spent in the first year, making the one year total less than $7 billion for infrastructure.
8. Much of the funding within the House Democrats' proposal will go to programs that already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already have $16 billion on hand. And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.
9. In 1993, the unemployment rate was virtually the same as the rate today (around seven percent). Yet, then-President Clinton's proposed stimulus legislation ONLY contained $16 billion in spending.
10. Here are just a few of the programs and projects that have been included in the House Democrats' proposal:
11. Almost one-third of the so called tax relief in the House Democrats' bill is spending in disguise, meaning that true tax relief makes up only 24 percent of the total package, not the 40 percent that President-elect Obama had requested.
- $650 million for digital TV coupons .
- $6 billion for colleges/universities, many which have billion dollar endowments.
- $166 billion in direct aid to states, many of which have failed to budget wisely.
- $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts .
- $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters .
- $200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting .
- $400 million for "National Treasures."
12. $825 billion is just the beginning; many Capitol Hill Democrats want to spend even more taxpayer dollars on their "stimulus" plan.
Please explain this: why should the taxpayers' money should be sent to models of mismanagement like Michigan and California? Both states haven't cut spending even though it's obvious that they're spending money far faster than they're taking it in . What's worse is that they've been doing that for years.
Rest assured that the money will be sent to Michigan and California without accountability or reform provisions attached to the cash. If such a list isn't included, there's a strong likelihood that they'll just treat it like a cash injection to keep doing what they're currently doing .
How is that in our national interest? I can't picture that jumpstarting our economy though I can picture it lining the pockets of the Democrats' political allies.
Originally posted Monday, January 19, 2009, revised 11-Jun 5:01 AM
Comment 1 by Tony at 28-Jan-09 10:57 PM
We live in tough times and something must be done quickly. However, making quick decisions doesn't mean making poor ones.
The goals of the stimulus bill are ideal. Unfortunately, the specifics still leave room for wasting money or spending it on things that don't stimulate the economy. $819 billion is alot of money. I think accounting for money spent must be kept as public as possible.
What a Difference a Year Makes
Last year, the DFL complained that Republicans' plan for rebuilding highways and bridges would heap tons of debt on future generations. This year, they're praising Obama's plan to piss money away for things like $650 million for digital TV coupons , $50 million in funding for the National Endowment of the Arts, $44 million for repairs to U.S. Department of Agriculture headquarters and $200 million for the National Mall, including grass planting .
These are items currently in legislation charitably known as President-Elect Obama's stimulus package.
Please forgive me if I don't see the stimulative effect of dumping $200,000,000 into maintaining the National Mall, including planting grass. For what it's worth, I see the payoff to federal unions in that $200,000,000.
Please forgive me if I don't see the stimulative effect of issuing $650,000,000 worth of coupons so people can buy digital TV's.
Please forgive me if I don't see the stimulative effect of building two hotels in Harrisburg, PA, or building the Organized Crime Museum in Las Vegas, NV.
Please forgive me if I don't see the stimulative effect of spending $50,000,000 on the National Endowment for the Arts.
What I see is the Democrats' jobs plan as them pissing away a fistful of dollars that our children and their children will be paying for.
What I see is the DFL's jobs plan being based on the myth that fistful after fistful of money will be used to rebuild our highways and bridges. As stated in my previous post, less than 3 percent of the stimulus package goes for the nation's highways and bridges.
That's if the bill doesn't grow, which it will.
Here in Minnesota, the DFL is selling the plan this way:
DFLers are pinning much of their hope for short-term relief on a national stimulus package coming out of Washington, suggesting the money can be used to fund infrastructure and construction projects that bring immediate job opportunities.With $30,000,000,000 being spread amongst 50 states, how much of that $30,000,000,000 will find its way to Minnesota? If it's spread evenly amongst all 50 states, which it won't, we'd get $600,000,000. States like Florida, New York, Massachusetts, California and Michigan will get boatloads of money.
Just for the sake of argument, though, let's stipulate that Minnesota gets a fistful of money for infrastructure repair. How will that help Minnesota longterm? How will that help Minnesota transition into a 21st Century economy?
I suspect the answer is that it won't help them transition into a 21st Century economy.
In the end, the stimulus package is much spending to pay off political allies in the unions that does little to stimulate the economy while causing high inflation and heaping tons of debt on future generations.
That's the definition of pissing money away.
Posted Monday, January 19, 2009 7:23 PM
No comments.
Reps. Brod, Thissen Reform Hinges on Tax Incentives
Reps. Laura Brod, (R-New Prague), and Paul Thissen, (DFL-Minneapolis) are working together to use tax incentives to encourage people into buying long-term care:
Last summer, Nebraska Treasurer Shane Osborn flew to the Twin Cities and pitched his state's unique savings plans at an event sponsored by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, Citizens League, 2020 Conference and Ecumen. The long-term care accounts work a lot like the well-known tax-advantaged 529 college savings plans that many people already have. State income tax deductions, up to $2,000 for couples filing jointly in Nebraska, provide an incentive to save for nursing home care, assisted living or home health services that family members may need down the road. Brod and Thissen plan to introduce legislation that would allow Minnesotans to open up this type of account.Reps. Brod and Thissen should be congratulated for using tax incentives to encourage private citizens to set the right priorities.
Rep. Brod was one of the driving forces behind the health care reform that got signed into law last spring. Antime that she's involved with health care-related issues, it's a good day for Minnesota's Republicans. That's because she's a strong advocate of free market principles and a strong advocate for tax incentives, aka tax cuts.
Here's a brief overview of Nebraska's plan :
Participants may deduct up to $1,000 ($2,000 filing jointly) from their federal adjusted gross income for Nebraska state income tax purposes by depositing an equal amount into a designated LTCSP account. In order to qualify for Nebraska Income Tax deductions in 2007, an individual must make a deposit to a participating Financial Institution by the end of the calendar year.This sounds like a solid plan because people saving for their needs forces them to set budgetary priorities. If there's anything that will help put the economy on the right track, it's us returning to a savings-first mindset.
Account deposits accrue interest tax-free until withdrawn at any age, as long as they are used for long-term care needs or transferred to a beneficiary after death. The money can be used to pay long-term care needs for spouses or others in which the account holder has an insurable interest. After the age of 50, the monies also can be withdrawn tax-free to pay for long-term care insurance.
Let's also understand that, just like anything involving health care-related issues, there isn't a single silver bullet that will solve everything. Nonetheless, it's a significant step in the right direction.
The devil is always in the legislation's language but conservatives should be optimistic that tax incentives are being used to encourage personal accountability and responsibility.
I'll have more on this reform legislation in the days ahead. Be sure to check back for more on this reform legislation.
UPDATE: I just got an email from Rep. Steve Gottwalt in which he said that he "will again be proposing an increased tax credit for long term care coverage." That doesn't surprise me because it's long been known that he's one of the leading health care reformers since first getting elected to the Minnesota Legislature.
Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2009 11:34 AM
Comment 1 by Scott A Olson at 21-Jan-09 11:29 AM
Although the Nebraska Long Term Care Savings Account is a great idea, the Nebraska Long Term Care Partnership program is an even bigger step in the right direction.
LTC Partnership policies provide dollar-for-dollar asset protection. Each dollar that your partnership policy pays out in benefits entitles you to keep a dollar of your assets, if you ever need to apply for Medicaid services.
The result is that fewer Baby Boomers will have to rely on Medicaid to pay for their long term care services. The Medicaid budget will not overwhelm taxpayers and Medicaid will be protected for the truly needy.
Those purchasing long term care insurance Partnership policies will have more choices for their care. Additionally, the assets and retirement savings of the policy owner will be protected from nursing home and other types of long term care expenses. This will increase the financial security of the healthy spouses ("community spouses") as well as protecting assets for their children and heirs.
It is difficult enough to deal with the emotional burden when a spouse or family member needs long term care. Long Term Care Partnership policies will help to alleviate much of the financial burden as well.
Four states have successfully run LTC Partnership programs for years, namely, California, Connecticut, Indiana and New York.
Since 2005, many other states have established LTC Partnership programs including Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Virginia.
Scott A. Olson
www.LTCInsuranceShopper.com
Trouble In HopeAndChangeLand?
Based on this article in Politico , there's signs that HopeAndChange is meeting its first bit of resistance. Here's what's causing the pushback:
Pelosi used a Fox News appearance Sunday to break with the president-elect on two key issues: the fate of President George W. Bush's tax cuts for families earning $250,000 or more and the possibility of congressional investigations into the actions of Bush administration officials.It's foolish to think that this will lead to a big implosion within the Democratic Party. I'd be stunned if it came to that. What's more likely is that an Obama administration will frequently defer to Ms. Pelosi and Sen. Reid. Entrusting your political well-being to the most tone-deaf pair of partisan politicians isn't wise.
While Pelosi's words showed that she and Obama don't always agree on matters of policy, the signal they sent was more important: Yes, you can use the media to speak straight to the public.
But so can I - and I will when you're invading my turf.
"She trusts him greatly because they share the same agenda and vision, but she always keeps the interests of the caucus in mind," said a top House Democratic aide. "She has to move the process forward and is extremely strategic."
One thing that I can't imagine happening, though, is an Obama administration sitting silent on the issue of investigating the Bush administration. That's a political and PR disaster for Democrats. Investigating the Bush administration at this time will be seen as motivated by vindictiveness and pettiness.
It would also signal that Congress isn't focusing enough attention on the economy. Americans demand that Congress right our economic ship ASAP. Spending time on partisan witchhunts won't sit well with most people, though it would excite the Lunatic Left.
This section of the article sounds like Ms. Pelosi will cause President Obama to walk the tightrope some of the time:
At the moment, such a rift seems unlikely between Pelosi and Obama, who have a good personal relationship and are in virtual lock step ideologically on issues ranging from Iraq to health care reform.This wouldn't be the first time that something started as a mild disagreement and built into a larger disagreement. The dirty little secret is that Ms. Pelosi knows that Congress's agenda won't match the Obama administration's because the House's next election is 22 months away whereas President Obama's next election is 46 months away.
But this isn't the first time that Pelosi has bristled when she thought Team Obama was going too far. In a private conversation after the election, the speaker told Rahm Emanuel, Obama's White House chief of staff and her former deputy, that he should butt out of House Democrats' business.
Pelosi's willingness to go public with her disagreement reflects the new realities imposed on Washington by Obama himself. The new president, whose approval rating is north of 70 percent, has exhibited an impressive capacity to speak directly to voters through broadcast media and the Internet. Pelosi, staffers argue, needs to go public just to keep pace, and to protect her power.
"Her main goal in all of this is to defend the House's prerogatives," a Democratic aide said.
Ms. Pelosi knows that she must keep the Nutroots satisfied. She knows that President Obama can't be the ideologue that the Nutroots want. Ms. Pelosi also knows that the Democrats' election success hinges on satisfying the Nutroots' ideological demands.
It'll be interesting to see how each chapter of this unfolds. Rest assured that I'll be watching intently.
Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2009 2:53 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 21-Jan-09 10:57 AM
"Entrusting your political well-being to the most tone-deaf pair of partisan politicians isn't wise."
Yes, some did vote Bush-Cheney.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Jan-09 11:49 AM
You can disagree with President Bush but calling him tone-deaf isn't accurate.
Harry Reid & Nancy Pelosi are dirtbags who ignore the will of the people of a large part of the nation.
When Reid bragged that he'd killed the Patriot Act, he said it at a time when the vast majority of Americans wanted it in place.
Ritchie Reaps Recount's Rewards
This editorial in the Morrison County Record takes Mark Ritchie to task on several fronts. Here's the first criticism that Tom West, the MCRecord's GM/Editor, leveled against SecState Ritchie:
Except for a few extreme partisans, I think most Minnesotans want to be sure that all legal votes are counted. However, I doubt now that we will ever know if that happened. Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, as the chief election officer of the state, is responsible for the mess along with a number of county auditors and city election officials. Part of Ritchie's job is to train the county auditors, and in the larger cities the city clerk or chief election officials, how to conduct a fair election. It's the job of those he trains to then teach the election judges their duties. It's clear that as teachers, Ritchie and some others are lacking.This should've been SOP because it's such a no-brainer. There shouldn't have been confusion on what criteria had to be met for an absentee ballot to be accepted as validly cast. There are 4 clearly defined reasons for rejecting a ballot. Here's what Minnesota's election says about accepting/rejecting absentee ballots:
The election judges shall mark the return envelope "Accepted" and initial or sign the return envelope below the word "Accepted" if the election judges or a majority of them are satisfied that:It isn't difficult to determine whether the voter's name and address on the return envelope are the same. It isn't difficult to determine whether the voter's signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots or whether "the certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot." It isn't difficult to determine if "the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has included a properly completed voter registration application in the return envelope." It isn't difficult determining whether "the voter has...already voted..."
(1) the voter's name and address on the return envelope are the same as the information provided on the absentee ballot application;
(2) the voter's signature on the return envelope is the genuine signature of the individual who made the application for ballots and the certificate has been completed as prescribed in the directions for casting an absentee ballot, except that if a person other than the voter applied for the absentee ballot under applicable Minnesota Rules, the signature is not required to match;
(3) the voter is registered and eligible to vote in the precinct or has included a properly completed voter registration application in the return envelope; and
(4) the voter has not already voted at that election, either in person or by absentee ballot.
There is no other reason for rejecting an absentee ballot. In particular, failure to place the envelope within the security envelope before placing it in the outer white envelope is not a reason to reject an absentee ballot.
It isn't difficult if the workers have been trained or undergone a refresher course on absentee ballots.
Here's another criticism Mr. West leveled against SecState Ritchie:
In one of the Supreme Court rulings, it was decided that only the rejected ballots upon which the two campaigns agreed should be included in the recount. However, the campaigns have no special standing in this recount; it's the people's will and the integrity of the voting process that is in question. If Franken or Coleman objected to including a ballot, then the judgement of local officials, who had already acknowledged 1,346 mistakes, was allowed to stand.This is a big deal because the Supreme Court's ruling in Bush v. Gore is the ruling precedent. Here's what Michael Stokes Paulsen, a law professor at St. Thomas University, wrote about Bush v. Gore :
That the Secretary of State did not step in and ask the Supreme Court for statewide uniformity in determining whether ballots were wrongly rejected, reflects poorly on his leadership. (I should note that on this point alone, for Coleman to win the overall election, he probably would need 60 percent of the 654 ballots to be in his favor, compared to 25 percent for Franken and 15 percent for Dean Barkley or other third party candidates. That's not likely to happen; probably the best he could do on this point is to push the margin under 100 votes.)
By a vote of 7-2, Bush v. Gore (2000) ruled that Florida's recount violated the principle that all votes must be treated uniformly. Applying precedents dating to the 1960s, the Court found that the Equal Protection Clause meant that ballots must be treated so as to give every vote equal weight. A state may not, by "arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another." Florida's lack of standards produced "unequal evaluation of ballots in several respects." The state's supreme court "ratified this uneven treatment" and created more of its own, and was unconstitutional.It's Mr. Ritchie's job to know Minnesota's election laws, the US Constitution's rules pertaining to federal elections and court precedents affecting elections and recounts. Bush v. Gore isn't an ancient ruling. It's recent. It's been examined. It's sometimes been excoriated. Nonetheless, it's still the relevant precedent.
Mr. Ritchie should be asked why he didn't stand up for Minnesota's voters and for existing, clearly-written, election laws for the uniform treatment of ballots. They weren't treated with uniformity.
Mr. West raises another relevant point:
And then there is the infamous Minneapolis Ward 3 Precinct 1, where 133 ballots allegedly turned up missing. The original count is still being used, which increases Franken's margin of victory by 46 votes. How can a recount include numbers with no paper trail? Most likely, those ballots never existed, but 133 others were double counted.Here's what the law says about recounts:
Recounts are typically administrative proceedings with the scope limited to the manual recount of the ballots validly cast for the office or ballot question and the declaration of the results. A recount is performed by a canvassing board or by its staff.They couldn't find the 133 physical ballots to verify that there wasn't a double-counting of those votes. There's an old cliche that says "I only know what I can prove." We don't have physical proof that those 133 votes are real or illusory. Because we don't have that proof, we can't assume that they existed.
It's time that Mr. Ritchie was criticized for his mishandling of this recount. Adding votes that we can't prove existed is mishandling Mr. Ritchie's responsibilities. Not applying recount laws uniformly statewide is mishandling Mr. Ritchie's responsibilities. Ignoring Minnesota State Statutes on what absentee ballots can't be counted is mishandling Mr. Ritchie's responsibilities.
Calling this a smooth process isn't possible unless you ignore all the different places where the laws weren't applied evenly or weren't applied at all. That isn't my idea of a smooth process.
Posted Tuesday, January 20, 2009 9:07 PM
No comments.
Hollywood's Half-Hearted Americanism Exposed
The message from Andrew Breitbart's article about Hollywood's elitists isn't long on kumbayah. What it lacks in kumbayah, it makes up for in righteous annoyance:
The conservatives, Republicans and sundry non-lefties I know in show business have had nothing to say but positive and helpful things about the coming Obama presidency.Conditional-Americanism is cheap Americanism. It's worthless. I'll-take-my-ball-and-go-home-if-you-don't-play-by-rules-Americanism is equally worthless.
"We wish him well." "He is our president now and he needs our help."
These are the types of things I keep hearing.
And this is exactly the right attitude and exactly the right message.
God bless, President Obama. Even though I didn't vote for him, and disagree with much of his agenda, he has my best wishes and all of my best efforts.
But that doesn't mean I will forgive and forget an era of narcissism, petty complaining and conspiracy theory peddling from the majority celebrity class that began well before Iraq. [See "Hollywood, Interrupted ", my book co-written with Mark Ebner, which was written before and during the build-up to the Iraq war and before the WMDs weren't found. The public behavior from Hollywood even then was almost uniformly deplorable.]
Conspiracy theories of America's complicity in 9/11 dominated cocktail party discussions for eight tedious years. They couldn't simply disagree with Bush. They had to ascribe evil to his motivations and make sure the whole world agreed on that flawed premise.
Yet, hating the president doesn't mean one can't still help out the country in a great time of need. But many went to foreign countries and demeaned it instead. Called those that disagreed with them rubes and hicks. The elitism of the celebrities against flyover country America could not have been more pronounced. They made a boat-load of movies that affirmed this narrow and patronizing world view.
And now they want us back.
We're all Americans - NOW.
It's a convenient lie the celebrity left peddles that they were with us during the initial Afghanistan phase of the war, and even after 9/11.
During the last eight years, we needed robust unconditional Americanism. Hollywood wasn't interested in that type of Americanism. Hollywood's habit of blaming America for all that's wrong with the world is sickening. Michael Moore's, Danny Glover's and Sean Penn's praise of Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro is sickening. When they took shots at President Bush in the presence of those dictatorial tyrants, they showed how out of touch they were with America.
Twenty years ago AIDS was the number one cause for the Hollywood left. Remember the trendy red ribbons at all the self-aggrandizing awards shows? Hollywood has moved on (dot org) to better blame-your-fellow-American causes. But President Bush didn't. And aside from Bob Geldof and Bono, they ignore this president's demonstrable goodness.President Clinton was hailed for being the first black president but President Bush implemented a plan that improved lives in AIDS-stricken Africa.
Amazing that Geldof and Bono could valiantly fight their battles and serve humanity without being paralyzed by the Leader of the Free World 2000-2008's all-encompassing awfulness.
Remember this video: It is a instructive relic of the era of celebrity decadence and boutique anti-Republican activism under President Bush. It is a sickening display that they want fast and easy absolution for having comported themselves like ill-behaved children for eight difficult and war-torn years.
Mr. Breitbart sums things up perfectly:
Good luck, President Obama. The rest of you can go to hell.
Posted Wednesday, January 21, 2009 4:29 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 21-Jan-09 10:54 AM
Huh?
It sounds insincere.
It comes across as rhetoric without cause to give it any credibility.
And it's more praising Bush than facing the mess left behind him.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 21-Jan-09 11:03 AM
It's unforgiveable that Mssrs. Moore, Glover & Penn praised dictators like Castro & Chavez, people who've supported terrorists.
