Friday, March 1, 2013

So I was composing a lengthy post about the inestimable gall of the president to make particular arguments when I gave up.  

But I can talk about myself without talking about him.

I find that I'm in a [presumably tiny, but extant] minority of folks who find it hard to consider meaningfully and soberly the merits of the policies offered by the president when I am so infuriated at the horseshit, cravenly manipulative way that he argues them

This isn't a new feeling on my part, and my fury was generated by this president's predecessors.  But it's probably deeper where I perceive a talking-point, political points prez who hammers away on one note becauise he crassly embraces Mencken's sage observation about the intelligence of the American people. . . .







---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Postscript: So I didn't have a blog in 2002 or 2003 or 2004.  I am confident that I would have assailed the then-president for impugning the patriotism of his opponents (few) and his critics (also few, but greater than opponents).  By the time I got a blog, the criticism had descended into a lengthy debate about whether it was more effective to despise and criticize the guy for the Iraq fuck-ups, or for lying to the public.  I voted for stressing the fuckups, 'cause I thought the case for them was much stronger for those than for lying.
I mention this because it by turns makes me find the current Prez's objectionable behaviour both less and more offensive, less and more risible.

2 comments:

Who Am Us Anyway? said...

The President of the United
States says:

"Lay offs and pay cuts means that people will have less money to spend at local businesses. That means lower profits. That means fewer hires. So EVERY TIME that we get a piece of economic news over the next month, next two months, next six months, or as long as the sequester’s in place, we’ll know that that news could have been better if congress had not failed to act. (Bold All-Caps added.)"

Wait a minute. Now is he saying it won't be Bush's fault? I'm getting whiplash here. :-)

mister muleboy said...

So EVERY TIME that we get a piece of economic news over the next month, next two months, next six months, or as long as the sequester’s in place, we’ll know that that news could have been better if I, your President, had not failed to veto it . (Bold All-Caps added.)"

Or if I had not suggested it. Although since I now deny that, it doesn't matter.

And it wouldn't happen if I didn't insist on obtaining more tax revenue rather than actually reducing anything.
Or
Or


Or


I'm not saying it's his fault. --- just that he's at fault