I Killed the Bridge to Nowhere
Yup. I did it.
I killed it.
I told the Congress "theenks but no theenks for that bridge to noweere."
I'm a maverick and a reformer.
I'm a rebel, a rogue, a rake.
I'm a picker. I'm a grinner.
I'm a lover and a sinner.
Some call me the space cowboy. Some call me......well, you see where I'm going with this.
I'm a rogue and peasant slave.
No, wait...not that last thing. What does that mean anyway?
But I'm certainly a bridge-killer, and don't let the elite liberal media tell you any different. As you know, the facts have a well-known liberal bias.
I've got as much right to say that I killed the bridge as Palin has to say that she did it. In fact, I have more of a right to do so--at least I didn't advocate the thing. Of the two of us, I'm way more the bridge-killer than she is.
So, given the ground rules that have been established in this race, it's clearly permissible for me to assert that I killed the bridge.
So I do.
And I did.
I killed the bridge to nowhere.
Vote for me.
Yup. I did it.
I killed it.
I told the Congress "theenks but no theenks for that bridge to noweere."
I'm a maverick and a reformer.
I'm a rebel, a rogue, a rake.
I'm a picker. I'm a grinner.
I'm a lover and a sinner.
Some call me the space cowboy. Some call me......well, you see where I'm going with this.
I'm a rogue and peasant slave.
No, wait...not that last thing. What does that mean anyway?
But I'm certainly a bridge-killer, and don't let the elite liberal media tell you any different. As you know, the facts have a well-known liberal bias.
I've got as much right to say that I killed the bridge as Palin has to say that she did it. In fact, I have more of a right to do so--at least I didn't advocate the thing. Of the two of us, I'm way more the bridge-killer than she is.
So, given the ground rules that have been established in this race, it's clearly permissible for me to assert that I killed the bridge.
So I do.
And I did.
I killed the bridge to nowhere.
Vote for me.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:41 AM
13 Comments:
If Ruth Marcus is right about this, it looks like Obama is starting to venture over to the dark side.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092101207.html?nav=hcmodule
Turns out she's not actually right about it, though.
More on that soon.
Do, tell, A--
Are you an honest A, or one of those busy little CR's that seem to be leaving drive-bys in liberal comment sections?
Seriously--I'm just curious.
"I killed the Bridge to Nowhere" needs to be on a t-shirt.
Ugh, WS, I'm interested to see why Marcus is wrong about that. Politifact.org also has given Obama a Pants-on-fire lie for the Spanish commercial.
That really, really, REALLY sucks. I'm so disappointed. Before that, McCain had 6 pants on fire lies and Obama had 0. Now, he's got 1, and that puts Obama at 20 false statements with McCain at 29. Obama's catching up quick.
That's really, really unfortunate.
Of course, if you look at the lists, many of the false statements on both sides aren't really that bad - you can see how they slipped up in their wording and it came across in a way that I doubt was intended. I haven't counted up those cases from both sides and subtracted from their overall falsehood counts yet, so maybe that'd put Obama back on the good side, but ugh.
So disappointing.
Marcus asserts "Obama misleadingly accuses McCain of wanting to impose a $3.6 trillion tax hike on employer-provided insurance."
I cannot fathom why Marcus thinks this is misleading, as it is confirmed by McCain's economic advisor.
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, chief policy adviser for McCain goes on to state:
"If you put $5,000 per family in America on the table, insurance companies ought to be able to figure out a product they can buy. That's something that happens in every other part of the economy. It ought to be able to happen in insurance too."
Notice that Holtz-Eakin claims that we will be able to buy a product, he makes no claim that it will be an adequate product.
And the fact remains that market incentives have led insurance companies to exclude those most likely to use the insurance, to deny claims on any and all pretext, and to retroactively rescind policies of those who have becomes ill.
Mr. McCain's campaign gives us no reason to believe the market will magically stop insurance companies from screwing people over as they have done so well to date.
The issue with Obama's statement on social security is that the Bush "plan" of 2005 would not let people born before 1950 divert their social security payments into private accounts. (One can ask why, if private accounts are so grand, these older Americans should be denied their benefits, but that is another matter.)
Off course, Obama did not say "retirees", he said "If my opponent had his way, the millions of Floridians who rely on it would have had their Social Security tied up in the stock market this week."
Reading the Obama's statement in the narrow view taken by Marcus, I think it is reasonable to claim that millions of Floridians "rely" on SS, as many of them are not retired. For example, while not a Floridian, I am a US worker in my 40's who -- along with my wife & 3 children -- rely on social security being there in planning my retirement savings. I am certain that many, many Floridians fall into that category.
"But wait", Marcus might exclaim, "the intent of the ad is to scare people!" This is true. The thought of Social Security funds being squandered in the markets is scary, that is why the ad is effective. It reflects the truth that McCain is more interested in helping his wealthy backers than the citizenry of the US. The ad effectively communicates a valid fear.
Elsewhere, Marcus uses the incendiary language: '... the incendiary language about "privatizing" Social Security ...'. Marcus acknowledges that McCain supports private accounts, which is the same as "privatizing". Why Marcus is unwilling to call privatizing privatizing eludes me. (She would probably also object to my describing the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as nationalization.)
Marcus then lies about McCain's plan. She states "But Obama's cartoon version of private accounts is not what Bush suggested, and it certainly is not something being peddled by McCain now." However, McCain gives no details as to how he would set up the private accounts that amount to privatizing social security. McCain is "peddling" private accounts, with no qualifications or restrictions as to who can contribute to them nor as to how much workers can contribute to them.
McCain might, as Marcus apparently assumes, set them up as Bush proposed in 2005. But Marcus has no evidence to support this. Given McCain's history of flip-floppng, his history unreported gifts from financial companies and leaders, and his cozy relationships with lobbyists, Obama can legitimately (IMHO) assume the worst for McCain's "private accounts" privatization plan for social security.
(If McCain does not like this interpretation, he need only tell us what he actually plans to do rather than relying on buzzwords and vague generalities. Of course, generalities and buzzwords are his forte, not specific, concrete policies.)
I've got a bit of a hair trigger for this sort of thing, but, still, I'm inclined to agree with Jim on this point. Though, like the Mystic, I'm disappointed that Obama's not staying squeaky-clean.
But in a way, I really was more interested in finding out whether this Anonymous was for real--just a real person annoyed by the Obama ad--or part of an organized drive-by campaign. I'm becoming more and more suspicious that such a campaign exists. And you'll note, this comment is 100% OT.
Sounds paranoid, I know, but it's just a suspicion, and it doesn't come out of the blue.
WS,
The campaign exists.
The McCain site list some "Suggested Blogs" that a troll might infest. Sadly, Philosoraptor is not listed under "liberal", "moderate", or "other". You will, no doubt, be pleased to know that Philosoraptor is not listed as "conservative", either.
(I am amused to see that an "other" blog on which one can be rewarded for posting trollish comments is Instapundit, a blog with no comments.)
This doesn't answer the question "Is our Anonymous part of the campaign." FWIW, if it were my blog (and it ain't) I would be comfortable treating posts as trolling if I perceived them as such, no further evidence required.
Finally, to comment on WS's "I've got a bit of a hair trigger for this sort of thing, but, still, I'm inclined to agree with Jim on this point. Though, like the Mystic, I'm disappointed that Obama's not staying squeaky-clean." -- I don't see any practical method for simultaneously staying squeky-clean and being effective in today's political environment. I will not hold Obama to a standard that I cannot conceive of meeting myself.
And, I sure as hell won't hold him to a standard that neither the populace nor the press will hold McCain to.
I KNEW IT!!!!!!!!!11!1!
By which I mean:
I kinda suspected it.
Though, gosh, I can't believe that they'd leave major players such as our little community here off their lists! A fatal oversight perhaps!
Still, I've noticed suspicious comments cropping up over the last several weeks--some signed with generic-y names, some just anonymous... But it's the generically (and often irrelevantly) pro-McSame-y nature of the comments that's got my attention.
Just more evidence that paranoia is becoming a successful survival strategy in the Bush-McSame era...
WS spies a ray of hope:
Though, gosh, I can't believe that they'd leave major players such as our little community here off their lists! A fatal oversight perhaps!
Ah yes, here it is (with slight amendments) ...
The fools! They fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line! And even less known is this: never rile a Philosoraptor in his blog!
Keep on phone banking, WS!
LLLLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLL
Hi Winson. It's A, the same A who left the comment with the link to Marcus's article. I'm also the same A who left the link to the Matt Damon video and the link to the parody of the interview with Palin. I DEFINITLY AM NOT A CONSERVATIVE!! I posted the link to the Marcus articule because I'm annoyed that it seems like Obama is using some dirty tactics in his campaign (especially the Spanish language ad linking McSame to Limbaugh). I'm an Obama supporter, and if we're going to claim the moral high ground (as we should!), then we have to make sure that we're not resorting to Rovean tactics and we should address challenges by people like Marcus. That's all I was trying to convey by posting that link. I hope the McCain people aren't getting to you, Winston. :)
A,
Thanks much for clearing this up!!!
I am totally down with criticizing Obama when criticism is due, and was just wary b/c, as I've said, I've seen comments of late that just *seemed* to me to smell of a concerted drive-by campaign.
As I've said many times: one of the worst things about the Bush admin. is that they've made me feel like a conspiracy theorist...
I'm going to go back and examine the Obama ad more closely--so far I've just glanced at it, being preoccupied with other things.
Thanks for trying to keep me on the straight and narrow, A--this is, in all sincerity, very much appreciated.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home