52 SECONDS OF VIDEO OF OBAMA’S PLAN FOR UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT
I first saw this shocking clip over at my good friends on Maggie’s Farm who got it from MacRanger.
I am informed it’s an older video and has made the rounds a couple of times so if you’ve seen it, perhaps you might have a theory on why this hasn’t gone viral.
It is 52 seconds of the dumbest, the most frightening ideas on defense policy I’ve heard from the nominee of a major party. We’re in Dennis Kucinich territory here folks.
Here’s the transcript courtesy of one of the commenters at American Thinker (where some of this post originated):
“First, I’m the only major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning. And as president, I will end it.
Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending. I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems…and I will institute an independent Defense Priorities Board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.
Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons…I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off of hair-trigger alert…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals.”
In 52 seconds, he rattles off what an Obama presidency would mean for our national defense; slowing down of existing programs to build new weapons, cutting “tens of billions” of dollars in “wasteful” spending, scrapping missile defense completely, and setting up an “independent defense priority review board” (you can imagine the anti-defense liberals sitting on that board) to make sure we don’t waste any money building “unnecessary” weapons.
That’s not all. Obama wishes upon a star for a “nuclear free world” and to that end, he will not allow any new designs for nukes nor will be build any new ones. He wants to talk to the Russians about re-targeting our missiles and “deep cuts” in our nuclear arsenal.
This is dangerous and stupid. Slowing down current weapons projects only makes them more expensive over the long term (but it looks good politically because of the money saved up front). He calls the anti-missile system “unproven” - and thank God for that because the only way to “prove” that it works is to shoot down an incoming missile. Recent successes have been incredible - shooting down a target traveling at Mach 7 is no simple matter. And almost every test shows improvement.
Why scrap the system now after spending tens of billions of dollars and when we are close to success? Lunacy!
In fairness to Obama, everyone knows that we could find tens of billions in savings in the defense department. The question - as it is with his idea for an “independent” Defense Priorities Board - who decides what’s “wasteful” and what is “necessary?
It’s a question that has bedeviled defense planners since the end of World War II. In the 1980’s the Democrats took the easy way out; they voted against every new weapons system that came on line during the Reagan build-up. The M-1 Abrams Tank, the B1, the B2, cruise missiles, Trident Submarine - the list is endless.
Then there’s the matter of his pledge not to design or build any “new” nuclear weapons. This may be a huge problem since nuclear warheads are not like the fine wines I’m sure Obama keeps in his cellar - you can’t just store them away and forget them. Nukes require constant maintenance and the replacement of parts and materials every few years as the plutonium follows the laws of nature and, atom by atom, begins to degrade.
Will a President Obama continue to create fissile material to replenish our existing stockpile of weapons? He doesn’t say, does he?
I shudder when I think his 1960’s style liberal friends will have a go at the defense budget. Considering the fact they don’t think we face any threats, we’ll be lucky to keep the Army band.
Then there’s his pie in the sky notion of a nuclear free world. Everyone wishes for that. Heck, I wish that the moon was made of Velveeta cheese but wishing will never make it so. And somehow, I just can’t picture him and Putin on the same page about much of anything. Obama, the charmer, the ideologue and Putin, the aggressive, canny, ruthless autocrat.
Maybe we can convince a grown up to hold his hand during those negotiations.
In effect, Obama wants to gut the military to make sure we never go to war again. He has said as much on the campaign trail. And if a time ever comes, God forbid, where we would find it necessary to project our power to the far flung corners of the earth in order to protect Americans or American interests under an Obama presidency, I fear the military would be forced to tell him that it wouldn’t be possible.
Obama is McGovern, Carter, and John Kerry all rolled into one when it comes to maintaining and improving our defenses. He would be a disaster as president and this video shows very clearly why.
I think alot of this comes down to is does America want to be a major power. If the answer is no, then it should be okay to cut military spending on the level that Barack Obama suggests. If America does want to be a major power, then such cuts would be unwise.
Also, should America cease to be a major power, who will step up to fill the role that the US has. Someone will. I suspect it would be Russia and China with Russia leading the way. Without America as a major power how will this affect the world? Will it be more free or less free? Will it be richer or poorer? I suspect the world would be worse off without the US as a major power, however, the answer to that is really not known for certain at this time.
I would say that we are a major power whether we want to be or not. Our huge, dominating economy makes that a given. And our nukes. And our cultural domination.
Hard to see that we could just “choose” not to be what we are.
ed.
Comment by B.Poster — 5/21/2008 @ 7:53 am
“Why scrap the system now after spending tens of billions of dollars and when we are close to success? Lunacy!”
Because the known solution for the Red team is to simply build more missiles, including multiple dummy warheads to saturate the system.
In the case of countries without the ability to deliver warheads in mass attacks, the solution is simply to ship them to the target area without going ballistic. The only realistic use for missile defence is to deter the retaliation of minor countries with a small nuclear arsenal in response to a first conventional strike from the power with the missile defense.
And protecting yourselves against that scenario is simply not worth the money spent in some people’s judgement.
As for the rest of it the gross amount spent on military development is surely the ripest target for some small government conservatism, isn’t it? We’ve seen how well the advanced weapons systems have been doing recently, cost for cost, haven’t we.
“The question – as it is with his idea for an “independent” Defense Priorities Board – who decides what’s “wasteful” and what is “necessary?”
Politicians. that’s what they are for.
“Then there’s his pie in the sky notion of a nuclear free world. Everyone wishes for that. Heck, I wish that the moon was made of Velveeta cheese but wishing will never make it so. And somehow, I just can’t picture him and Putin on the same page about much of anything. Obama, the charmer, the ideologue and Putin, the aggressive, canny, ruthless autocrat.”
Yup, too difficult, let’s not try.
“In effect, Obama wants to gut the military to make sure we never go to war again. He has said as much on the campaign trail. And if a time ever comes, God forbid, where we would find it necessary to project our power to the far flung corners of the earth in order to protect Americans or American interests under an Obama presidency, I fear the military would be forced to tell him that it wouldn’t be possible.”
Again, yup, it wouldn’t be anything to do with the massive drain on the military and public purse that the pointless Iraq war has been.
In summary a man says (and many agree with him) that military spending is at insane levels, the response “How will we defend ourselves from…”
From who exactly?
In your response, consider the fact that your existing weapons far outclass anything that anyone else in the world has.
You honestly can’t think of better things to do wih that money?
Comment by Drongo — 5/21/2008 @ 8:26 am
Very well said, but the left wants us to be more like Europe in every way possible. Since they manage with small military forces, why shouldn’t we? Oh, because the US continues to defend their interests? So Obama will have us singing Kumbaya and holding hands. The Quakers and Mennonites may be good people but we’d be speaking Japanese, German and now Arabic if we took the peace at any costs, pacifist route. I’m sure the idealistic sheeple buy into John Lennon singing Give Peace a Chance and Imagine. Would have made great theme songs for dhimmis McGovern, Carter, Kerry and Obama…give Jihad and Sharia a chance…. God help us all.
Comment by HE HATE ME — 5/21/2008 @ 8:50 am
People
Obama does not plan to disarm America, what he plans to do is reduce the military spending to a level that is not abusive to the American people. Do you know that for each $10 we pay in taxes our goverment spends $4 in war efforts. In the Middle East, we the American people are spending $12 billion a month, and what are we gaining? Nothing, but young American soldiers injured, killed, etc. What if we invested those $12 billion a month in this country?
Obama wants to balance the budget and use the money we pay in taxes wisely and not in wars across the world.
Bush spent all the savings America had after Clinton left. Not only did he spent everything, but drove the nation into a huge debt. We owe money to everybody, even to our own people.
The budget of the United States is $3 trillion dollars. We spend around $485 billion on defense. That’s less than 8% of the budget. Your formulation is incredibly dishonest. Personal income taxes contribute only around $1.2 trillion to the budget. Even running a $200 billion deficit defense spending as a percentage of the budget is about what it was at the height of Reagans build up. And when taken as a measure of GDP, defense spending is around 3% - hardly a ballbreaker.
And don’t you listen to what this guy says? Or do you only hear what you want to hear. Weapons systems already in the pipleline, he would slow down or cancel - unilaterally. He would stop making nukes - unilaterally. He would cut the defense budget - the liberal’s idea of what is wasteful or unnecessary - unilaterally.
We call this “unilateral disarmament.” And only a naive idiot would do it.
ed.
Comment by Leo — 5/21/2008 @ 8:55 am
If the military tells President Obama that it can’t defend our interests, it will be more likely due to Bush’s draining of our manpower in Iraq, rather than pie in the sky rhetoric from years past. Plus, I rather prefer Obama’s idea of what our “interests” really should be than Bush or McCain. Not that I am convinced he is better on national security than McCain, but I believe he certainly would be less likely to get us entangled in another foreign adventure. Isn’t John McCain doing “bomb bomb Iran” just as scary?
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 5/21/2008 @ 9:09 am
Obama is well financed (typical of Democrats)
Obama has a good chunk of the black vote (typical of Democrats)
Obama has a good chunk of the youthful, progressive vote (typical of Democrats)
The ‘progressives’ are also lound as hell, which gives them an exaggerated sense of a majority.
But it’s a big damn country.
I hope he’s the nominee…because I can’t see a chance in hell of him winning the general election. Hillary obviously knows this, refuses to quit, and she’s been trying to give the rest of the Democrats a clue. But they’re in love and won’t listen to reason.
An Obama presidency would be disastrous…but I can’t see how it’ll come to that.
Comment by Kurt — 5/21/2008 @ 9:10 am
Well said Surabaya Stew…and I would add…
America is weary of the non-ending war in Iraq. It is destroying our economy and stretching our military to the breaking point. The real fear is that McCain will likely attack Iran in some limited fashion, and under the assumption that they won’t dare retaliate in earnest, and who knows what happens next.
Republicans should be careful in attacking Obama as being naive to negotiate with our enemies and predisposed to peace. This just validates the notion that the GOP is the “war party” run by neocons.
America will never be secure with a weak economy that depends on loans from China, Saudi Arabia, et al.
It is a fallacy that the war is “stretching our military to the breaking point.” It is stretching the army and the Marines to some extent. But it has hardly touched the Navy where 6 carrier strike forces could deliver enough firepower in a single day to wipe out most countries. And the Air Force is hardly stretched at all - including a long range bomber force that could pulverize several cities in a few hours.
You can say that the army is strectched to the breaking point - and even saying that can cause an argument in most militay quarters. But to say our “military” is stretched is ridiculous.
ed.
Comment by DrKrbyLuv — 5/21/2008 @ 9:44 am
“An Obama presidency would be disastrous…but I can’t see how it’ll come to that.”
I remember hearing the same thing about Jimmy Carter.
Comment by SShiell — 5/21/2008 @ 9:57 am
This issue is a bit of a catch-22. No Republican leader is going to even attempt to reduce wasteful military spending, and any Democratic leader who brings up the idea is going to be met with criticism that he is going to completely gut the military. The current problem with our military is not a lack high-tech weaponry, it’s the lack of soldiers. From Obama’s website: “Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.” I understand the need for us to maintain our technological superiority., but I agree with his priorities in this matter.
I can imagine why Obama’s statements alarm you, but as much as Republicans try to paint him as such, Obama is not actually an 1960’s-era liberal. Democrats are polling better than Republicans on national defense, and I’m happy to see them embracing stronger positions on this than they have in the past.
Rick, what do you mean by the statement “Slowing down current weapons projects only makes them more expensive over the long term”? You’re probably right, but I’m not sure how that works. On the flipside of this dynamic, pushing ahead development of weapons projects, as Bush has done with missile defense, also increases the overall cost.
The problem with slowing down the contracting process for weapons systems occurs in the “out years” of the contracts - the extra years added on. Companies are allowed (usually) to make up 120% of the costs of development. Obviously, more years means more costs. And companies like to play accounting games so that the actual costs don’t show up until those out years either.
It may look like a savings in the first years but you pay more in the end.
And to believe that Obama’s liberalism isn’t taken straight out of the 1960’s, one need only see that clip. That is classic anti-defense rhetoric that we’ve heard from the 60’s through today.
ed.
Comment by Aaron — 5/21/2008 @ 10:04 am
“Slowing down current weapons projects only makes them more expensive over the long term”
An example is the B-1 (Bone). The Bone development began prior to the Carter Administration. It was to be the B-52 Replacement but the cost at the time was a whopping $85 Million for 250 of the aircraft. Carter cancelled the program at the point where limited production was to begin.
Fast Forward to the Reagan Administration. The Bone was revived but with major differences, hence the designation B-1B. And the differences made the aircraft a shadow of its fromer self - with the cost topping out at over $275 Million a copy. With that pricetag, only 100 were purchased for what previously would have cost for the original 250. Today all but a very few have been sent to the boneyard (pardon the pun).
Why are they gone already? As I said, the B-1B was a shadow of its fromer self. What was to be a supersonic bomber, became supersonic only in a very narrow flight range. What was to have been an offensive dynamo was limited by reductions in offensive capabilities. Why? Cost. Reagan cut a deal with Congress to produce only as many Bones as the original program would have cost - hence only 100 were purchased with reduced capabilities.
Had the original B-1 been purchased, I have no doubt that they would still be in the inventory - a couple of hundred of them at least.
Need another example?
Comment by SShiell — 5/21/2008 @ 10:51 am
“$85 Million for 250 of the aircraft”
Correction - the $85 Million was a per aircraft cost.
Comment by SShiell — 5/21/2008 @ 10:52 am
I thought you might like this graphic. Feel free to use it to illustrate a future post.
http://exurbanleague.com/2008/05/15/barack-chamberlain.aspx
Comment by Exurban Jon — 5/21/2008 @ 11:41 am
“I remember hearing the same thing about Jimmy Carter.”
Point taken. I was 9 during Carter’s campaign…so my memory is more of playing cards in bicycle spokes and tree forts than politics.
Comment by Kurt — 5/21/2008 @ 12:02 pm
To SShiell:
“An Obama presidency would be disastrous…but I can’t see how it’ll come to that.
I remember hearing the same thing about Jimmy Carter.”
And how did that Carter administration work out for you? Lefties constantly (and hyperbolically) say that the Bush presidency is the “worst in history”. But Carter… now here stands a true contender for that moniker.
Comment by Michael B. — 5/21/2008 @ 12:53 pm
“Obama is McGovern, Carter, and John Kerry all rolled into one…”
Be afraid.
Be very afraid.
Comment by N. O'Brain — 5/21/2008 @ 1:24 pm
“Surabaya Stew Said:
9:09 am
If the military tells President Obama that it can’t defend our interests, it will be more likely due to Bush’s draining of our manpower in Iraq,”
Um, what are you talking about?
Reenlistments are through the roof, and both the Army and the Marines are expanding, the Marines to 202,000 active duty personell.
In fact the 3rd Battalion, 9th Marines, was just reactivated down at Camp Lejeune.
Comment by N. O'Brain — 5/21/2008 @ 1:29 pm
“I was 9 during Carter’s campaign…so my memory is more of playing cards in bicycle spokes and tree forts than politics.”
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Comment by SShiell — 5/21/2008 @ 1:31 pm
“Isn’t John McCain doing “bomb bomb Iran” just as scary?”
And Obama’s “Bomb Pakistan to get at Bin Laden” not scary to you? Not anywhere near the same thing.
Without even mentioning Iran’s development of Nuclear weaponry - Iran has created conflict through its surrogates (Hamas) in Gaza. Iran has completely destabilized Lebanon (and it is not as if Rick hasn’t written about Lebanon) through its surrogate Hezbollah. Iran has provided the Iraqi Insurgency with advisors, training and munitions against our own troops in Iraq.
Bin Laden is likely hiding out in some cave in Pakistan. Obama would attack a nation whose leadership is friendly to our anti-terrorism position thereby putting that administration at risk with the more radical elements within Pakistan.
And with all that having been said, it is your idea that Obama is “less likely to get us entangled in another foreign adventure.”
LOL!
Comment by SShiell — 5/21/2008 @ 2:39 pm
If Obama does half of what he has promised in this campaign regarding Foreign Policy then the Carter Presidency will look look like a success story by comparison.
Comment by SShiell — 5/21/2008 @ 2:41 pm
Absolutely spot on article. Every time we have drastically cut military spending (beyond normal post-war reductions to respond to war time buildups) we have been caught short in the next time of trouble. This goes back to at least the Civil War era and probably before. Rick is correct in that the financial costs of catching back up when needed is a massive financial penalty for neglect of the military.
Nuclear weaponry is going to exist and we may as well deal with that fact by keeping our arsenal up to date and ready for possible use. I too would like to live in a world without them, but there is no example in history in which any kind of advancement in weapons technology was eliminated because of its destructive potential. All the wishful thinking in the world will not change the fact that nuclear weaponry is here to stay. I live in Kansas and can assure you that clicking your heels together three times just smudges your shoes, it doesn’t get you out of Oz.
Like a fair number of my conservative friends, I am going to hold my nose and vote McCain this fall, in large part for just the reason this article highlights so well.
Comment by still liberal — 5/21/2008 @ 3:30 pm
The point I was making about our Armed Forces being drained of manpower in Iraq, courtesy of Bush, is that 130,000 brave men and women are not available to defend our interests elsewhere in the world. N. O’Brain, I am glad to hear that the military is increasing the number of enlisted personnel, but will it be by enough to cover for all 130,000? How many Marines will we be able to send off at a moments notice (without subtracting from our forces in Iraq) when the new enlistment goals are reached? Is it more than before Iraq started? Questions like these make Obama’s promise to bring the troops home seem attractive to many people.
SShiell, thank you for reminding me about Obama’s Pakistan comment; I had quite forgotten about it. Doesn’t it seem quite at odds with his 52 seconds of disarmament blather? I mean, how can one person be pro-war with a (questionable) ally, and no-nukes at the same time? This is something that does not add up. He’s sounding like a politician!
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 5/22/2008 @ 12:31 am
“And almost every test shows improvement”
Improvement means the missile nuke hits vegas instead of LA. I could not agree more!
Face up to it, the genie has been let out of the bottle. What could be more geopolitically democratic than national nukes? There is no shield against suitcase nukes. And you want more billions to fight missiles?
Comment by bobwire — 5/22/2008 @ 1:18 am
“Doesn’t it seem quite at odds with his 52 seconds of disarmament blather? I mean, how can one person be pro-war with a (questionable) ally, and no-nukes at the same time? This is something that does not add up.”
It all makes perfect sense for someone who has absolutely no clue as to what he is talking about. The really pertinent question regarding his Foreign Policy proposals is “Does he rally understand the implications of what he is spouting?” And from my perspective the answer is fighteningly simple - NO!
Comment by SShiell — 5/22/2008 @ 1:44 pm
Velveeta Cheese? For goodness sake, how retro. Really, Obama’s promising Brie and Chardonnay. Nobody. Nobody would have a moon made of Velveeta. YucK@
Comment by rascalfair — 5/22/2008 @ 9:43 pm
To be fair not all the ideas are bad. I think the RRW, or reliable replacement warhead is not needed and is simply a bone to keep DOE jobs at the nuclear labs - nuclear welfare, if you will. A global ban on fissile material would be nice, but that would require a renegotiation of the NPT which simply ain’t gonna happen because the nuclear weapon’s states would have to provide some quid pro quo in return.
More importantly, however, is that Obama can’t make these unilateral spending decisions. Congress gets to decide what to spend on the armed forces and how much and Obama won’t have a line-item veto, so his promise to cut billions in defense spending is a pipe dream. He can try to reprioritize the QDR all he wants, but those efforts go off the deep end, the services have their friends in Congress who will be earmarking mofo’s if Obama tries to play those games. As a Senator, he knows how the system works, so to me, this is just the same kind of empty promises most politicians make to appease their base - promises they know have zero chance of being met.
Comment by Andy — 5/22/2008 @ 10:09 pm
[...] Update: A reminder of what an Obama presidency would bring, from Macranger and Rick Moran: [...]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » Choices Update: A video reminder of the choice — 5/23/2008 @ 11:48 am
Nuclear Weapons
* A Record of Results: The gravest danger to the American people is the threat of a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon and the spread of nuclear weapons to dangerous regimes. Obama has taken bipartisan action to secure nuclear weapons and materials:
1. He joined Senator Dick Lugar in passing a law to help the United States and our allies detect and stop the smuggling of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world.
2. He joined Senator Chuck Hagel to introduce a bill that seeks to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
3. And while other candidates have insisted that we should threaten to drop nuclear bombs on terrorist training camps, Obama believes that we must talk openly about nuclear weapons – because the best way to keep America safe is not to threaten terrorists with nuclear weapons, it’s to keep nuclear weapons away from terrorists.
* Secure Loose Nuclear Materials from Terrorists: Obama will secure all loose nuclear materials in the world within four years. While we work to secure existing stockpiles of nuclear material, Obama will negotiate a verifiable global ban on the production of new nuclear weapons material. This will deny terrorists the ability to steal or buy loose nuclear materials.
* Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Obama will crack down on nuclear proliferation by strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that countries like North Korea and Iran that break the rules will automatically face strong international sanctions.
* Toward a Nuclear Free World: Obama will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons, and pursue it. Obama will always maintain a strong deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. But he will take several steps down the long road toward eliminating nuclear weapons. He will stop the development of new nuclear weapons; work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair trigger alert; seek dramatic reductions in U.S. and Russian stockpiles of nuclear weapons and material; and set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate- range missiles so that the agreement is global.
Building a 21st Century Military
* The Problem: The excellence of our military is unmatched. But as a result of a misguided war in Iraq, our forces are under pressure as never before. Obama will make the investments we need so that the finest military in the world is best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.
* Rebuild Trust: Obama will rebuild trust with those who serve by ensuring that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.
* Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
* New Capabilities: Obama will give our troops new equipment, armor, training, and skills like language training. He will also strengthen our civilian capacity, so that our civilian agencies have the critical skills and equipment they need to integrate their efforts with our military.
* Strengthen Guard and Reserve: Obama will restore the readiness of the National Guard and Reserves. He will permit them adequate time to train and rest between deployments, and provide the National Guard with the equipment they need for foreign and domestic emergencies. He will also give the Guard a seat at the table by making the Chief of the National Guard a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Comment by Mike Syke — 5/24/2008 @ 8:20 pm
I remember the Carter years well. As a 17 year old on Nov of ‘76, I had to sit helplessly by & watch him get elected.
Gas was up over $2.00 per gallon @ one time in ‘79, and you had to wait in line to get it !
Inflation was double-digit
Interest rates were almost 14% !!! It was like buying your home with a credit card !
Last but not least, the straw that broke the peanut-farmers back was sending 5 helicopters with special forces to rescue our hostages in Iran, only to lose 3 of them in the desert.
I’ve been alive long enough to learn one thing about Democratic presidents. They declare the boogie-man dead, and carve military budgets to dangerous levels, so that our enimies get encouraged.
My prediction is Obama will win, and within 2-3 years, we’ll be reminded why we keep re-electing republicans.
Comment by JW — 5/27/2008 @ 7:12 pm
we’ll be reminded of what? of the sorry state of both parties and how it is they perpetuate domestic and international catastrophes? take your pick and blame whomever the hell ya want (personally my vote goes for the electorate). either way, the republican/democrat candidate says something that makes ya wet and giddy; the savior of all woes brought about by THEM, you know, those freaks on the other side. carter’s day isn’t today. i don’t know if anybody has seen there aren’t as many countries enamored by the us of a. the price of gasoline will not return to what most perceive as normal. hey, but we can pull out another can of whoop ass and spread that good old country hospitality, you know, like mom, apple pie and chevrolet. or we can take back the country from those heathens on the other side. you know, those baby eaters who aim to open pandora’s box. oh, the box was open? when you say? that long ago. yeah, any president is gonna fix all the shit, it’ll only take as long as it take to bake one of them there swanson tv dinners.
Comment by dperino — 5/31/2008 @ 8:59 am
I know I am quite out of my league here, but will still add my comment.
What is this blog all about?? I just happen to stumble upon this…
Isn’t time being wasted here, by bludgeoning opponents with your opinion?
If this really served a purpose, you would make a comment and leave satisfied.
But you aren’t … you keep coming back again and again.
Shouldn’t we be out recruiting those who believe what we believe, and make sure they get to the polls this November to vote in the one who will be the best man to preserve our nation, our rights, our standards, our securities, etc.??
I have said what I meant to say … and I will now leave satisfied, not to return.
Comment by slee — 6/7/2008 @ 6:20 pm
[...] and who has some very naive ideas about foreign policy and mid-East Diplomacy, a hunger to destroy our military capabilities. He’s got no economic strategy beyond “raising taxes”, no energy strategy beyond [...]
Pingback by Obama, Jews & Newsweek: the MSNBC of mags | The Anchoress — 6/10/2008 @ 3:32 pm