Lol. I also particularly liked this part:To deal with these challenges the Democrats present a history-making nominee for president. History-making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president. Apparently they believe that he would match up well with the history-making, Democrat-controlled Congress. History-making because it's the least accomplished and most unpopular Congress in our nation's history.
Now our opponents tell you not to worry about their tax increases. They tell you they are not going to tax your family. No, they're just going to tax "businesses." So unless you buy something from a "business," like groceries or clothes or gasoline . . . or unless you get a paycheck from a big or a small "business," don't worry . . . it's not going to affect you.As for the other speakers,
Bachmann: Irritating.
Laura Bush: Very good.
Bush: Classy.
Lieberman: Surprisingly effective.
I really liked Lieberman's point about bipartisanship. If your goal is to be post-partisan, to heal the country of its divisiveness, why would you vote for the candidate who is ranked the #1 most extreme liberal over the candidate who regularly goes against big ticket conservative positions (climate change and immigration), who approached a Democrat to be on his ticket in 2004 and seriously considered adding one to his in 2008? I don't think bipartisanship is necessarily a virtue, but Obama would have us believe it is. Who is he kidding about being "bipartisan" here? I have yet to actually hear an answer about this from an Obama supporter, but I truly would like to know.
I watched on PBS, which was great because the talking heads were kept to a minimum. It was funny watching David Brooks make everything into a backhanded compliment. Way better than Mark Shields, who was a really nasty piece of work. [ETA: I'm not the only one who thinks so.]
Finally - I got to talk to Hugh Hewitt on the air today! Now I have something in common with Lileks! Yay for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment