Republicans Against Democrats
In the ongoing battle between those on the right and those on the left, the big difference is that the former approach it with one hand tied behind their back and the other hand clutching the Marquis of Queensbury rulebook, while those on the left will knee, gouge and use blackjacks whenever necessary. All things considered, when liberals merely settle for lying, they’re being on their best behavior. That’s why when it was discovered that Obama had been lying for three years when he repeatedly told us that we would all be able to keep our medical insurance and our doctors, he wasn’t compelled to say, “That being the case, let’s toss out the Affordable Care Act and start over. After all, its passage was based entirely on fraud, and that’s just not the way we do things in America.”
In the ongoing battle between those on the right and those on the left, the big difference is that the former approach it with one hand tied behind their back and the other hand clutching the Marquis of Queensbury rulebook, while those on the left will knee, gouge and use blackjacks whenever necessary.
All things considered, when liberals merely settle for lying, they’re being on their best behavior. That’s why when it was discovered that Obama had been lying for three years when he repeatedly told us that we would all be able to keep our medical insurance and our doctors, he wasn’t compelled to say, “That being the case, let’s toss out the Affordable Care Act and start over. After all, its passage was based entirely on fraud, and that’s just not the way we do things in America.”
And when, in February, 2014, Kathleen Sebelius, aka Cruella DeVil, said that she had no idea where anyone had come up with the goofy notion that ObamaCare required at least seven million sign-ups by the end of March to be considered a success, I only wish I had been nearby to remind her that in September, 2013, a scant six months earlier, she had said, “Success would be at least seven million signed up by the end of March.”
Of course there’s always the chance she wasn’t fibbing. It could mean the early onslaught of Alzheimer’s. She really should go in for a check-up, and since she isn’t covered by ObamaCare, I’m sure she’d actually be able to find a doctor.
According to a recent poll, it seems that 80% of Democrats have their fingers crossed, hoping that Hillary Clinton will deign to run in 2016. No doubt many of them simply can’t wait to see her husband back in the White House. It might be something of a sticky wicket as to what his title would be. After all, he can’t be the First Lady, and we all know that calling him the First Gentleman would be laughable. I suppose First Hound Dog or First Creep would be appropriate, but, assuming the GOP doesn’t blow a very winnable election, it should remain a moot question.
Some think tank recently accessed government records that showed that the Obamas have taken about two dozen vacations over the past five years, costing the tax payers roughly $20 million. Frankly, I suspect that once you figure in all the additional costs of carting around the Secret Service, it’s much more than that. But in any case, I don’t think that Barack, Michelle or the kids, work so hard that they require four vacations a year. Furthermore, Camp David has already been set aside as a getaway for the First Family. It has all the accoutrements of a first class resort and, best of all, it’s just a short hop by helicopter from the White House. But I say if whoever is president finds Camp David inadequate, he or she should pay for their own damn vacations. They’re all millionaires, after all, so they can all afford to pick up the tab.
Speaking of the Pipsqueak-in-Chief, Obama, through his sock puppet Chuck Hagel, is calling for budgetary cuts to the Pentagon so that we’ll have a leaner, more flexible and efficient, military. So why is it that he simultaneously insists on a fatter, more sedentary and wasteful federal government? What rationale is there for cutting the Army down to 440,000 while constantly increasing the number of federal bureaucrats, a number that currently stands at just under three million? I mean, who are these civil service palookas prepared to fight? Besides the Tea Party and other conservative groups, that is.
When Obama and the Democrats display such favoritism towards federal bureaucrats, it all comes down to their acknowledging on which side their ballots are buttered.
In comparing the two parties, I find that the best one can often say for Republican politicians is that they’re better than those on the other side of the aisle. Once in power, Republicans never push back or really undo what the Democrats have done. They must think that would constitute unsportsmanlike conduct. Instead, they’re satisfied with the status quo, which means that once the liberals regain control, they merely pick up where they left off.
For instance, Ronald Reagan said all the right things, but he did nothing to diminish the size and scope of government, and, what’s more, the national debt rose under his stewardship. For his part, Bush foolishly engaged in nation-building at a cost to our treasury and to the lives of our soldiers, who were simultaneously trying to win a couple of wars. On the other hand, he did nothing to iron out the few wrinkles in our health care system, which would have probably prevented ObamaCare from wreaking such havoc on the people and the economy.
The best that can honestly be said for their presidencies is that they kept Jimmy Carter from having eight years in the Oval Office and prevented the likes of Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry, from having even four.
Finally, the expression “slightly pregnant” used to refer to a contradiction in terms, a cousin to an oxymoron. But for liberals, it’s become a legal technicality. For some of them, the “slightly” refers to an embryo not yet 27 weeks old, while to other left-wing nincompoops it refers to a nine month old baby getting ready to shake hands with the obstetrician.
