Stupid
It’s the economy, stupid, but that’s not all it is:
Just reported: 450,000+ new jobless claims, stupid.
There’s a 50/50 chance of another rate cut in December, making the dollar worth even less than it is now to the rest of the world. Monopoly money backed by the full faith and credit of the US government, which isn’t saying a lot lately, stupid.
The Chinese, who have been propping up our economy by buying our T-Bills, so that we can buy WalMartian goods from them, are probably losing a bit of patience, stupid.
It’s not the lipstick, whether on a pig or a pit bull, stupid.
It’s your future, it’s your kid’s future, and it’s their kid’s future, stupid.
It’s THE future, stupid.
Start paying attention, or pay the price for insisting on remaining…stupid.
That old definition of insanity, doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result, applies directly to the upcoming election.
Obama may be an X factor in certain respects, but McPalin have all their cards on the table and it’s the same losing hand that got us here. If this country chooses a comfortable demise over an uncertain but plausible opportunity, then the American spirit is gone.
Stupid.
2 Comments
Additional comments powered by BackType
The Big question is:
How do we become ex-stupid?
Is it even possible, when so many forces over time, from regular ads to dumb TV to superhero comic book movies– much less political spin– have stupefied us relentlessly?
An astute observation from the blog Traderfeed.com:
“One conundrum pondered by political writers is why the Democratic ticket is not enjoying greater strength in the polls, given the voters’ mood toward the political parties. Is there a hidden race factor at work? Is it nefarious media influence?
I think not. My rule, politically incorrect as it may be, is that America generally elects the candidate who is most manly. Now manly is a dated term; it’s an amalgam of youthful energy and tough grit.
America likes manly men. They populate action movies; they make great sports heroes; and they are prominent on the best seller lists. They get things done, and they aren’t troubled by doubts or nuances.
Eisenhower vs. Stevenson? The manly guy wins. Truman vs. Dewey? The “give ‘em hell” guy upsets the effete Easterner. Kennedy had the vibrancy of youth and the dash of a PT boat commander over Nixon. Reagan was the cowboy over Carter. It’s not a Democrat or Republican thing. Look at the vigor of Bill Clinton over a wooden Bob Dole. Bush could talk tough and direct over a Kerry or Gore–not unlike Nixon’s realism over McGovern’s idealism.
What’s more, you don’t have to be a man to be manly. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir: those were tough leaders. That’s why the initial take on Sarah Palin has been positive. Does she have any well-formed positions on global economics or foreign affairs? Of course not. But she hunts and she eats moose. Manly.
So that’s why the polls have shifted. One guy talks in idealistic platitudes, the other struts out his ordeals as a POW. It’s Dewey and Truman all over again. I’m not sure Republicans have earned the right to four more years, but unless Democrats–in the felicitous phrase of my daughter–”grow a pair”, we’re likely to see another manly man in the White House.”