The founders of Ironic Beer - a.k.a. "The Quasi-Blog," a.k.a. the "Blog That No One Posts In"- are thrilled to announce the Second Official Meeting of the Quasi-Blog Council, or "QB II."
What is QB II, you ask? Simply put, it's the second-ever gathering by the members of this blog, this time over a lavish steak dinner and enough drinks to put Boris Yeltsin to bed before dessert. As you may have guessed, it's a private soiree, so unless you answer to one of the handles listed at right, or once made an empty promise to post here under the handle "White Running Back," you're not invited! Nevertheless, because this blog serves only to titillate the five meatheads who created it - who themselves resort to reading it only out of desperation - I'm posting the details of our brainy bacchanalia here to drum up excitement for this upcoming righteous roundtable of cacophonous carnivorism. So, without further ado, here are the juicy, medium-rare details:
What: Second Night Out With the Quasi Blog - "QB II"
Where: Ruth's Chris Steakhouse, School Street, Boston
When: Friday, March 14, 2007 - 7:00 PM reservation confirmed
Why: Because dudes+steak+wine+scotch+cigars+ultraconservatism=Pure Joy
How: Through the heroic consumption of alcoholic spirits and dry-aged, USDA Prime beef
So there you have it. Looking forward to seeing y'all there - especially White Running Back, whose unflappable devotion to his life's work prevents him from ever appearing on or otherwise associating himself on this blog. We've truly missed ye.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Bang the Gong... Please!
John McCain took Wisonsin handily yesterday. Three weeks ago, that sentence would have ended with something like, "further cementing his position as the GOP front-runner and presumptive nominee," but at this late stage, McCain's imminent victory in the Republican Primary is a mere formality, and McCain's campaign has justifiably shifted into general election-mode.
But don't tell that to Mike Huckabee, who despite having slightly less than a snowball's chance of surviving the fires of the Hell in which he no doubt believes, has vowed to remain in the race to provide conservative voters with a "voice."
And so completes the comically tragic evolution of candidate Huckabee (in the figurative sense, Mike - we know you don't believe you "descended from monkeys"). In the Beginning, when he won the Iowa caucuses against all odds and on a shoestring budget, he was the resilient, resourceful candidate. His vow to soldier on after narrow losses in New Hampshire and South Carolina signaled a steadfast resolve that was inspiring, if not altogether agreeable. After he lost Super Tuesday, his decision to remain in the race against impossible odds in the name of democracy demonstrated, if nothing else, admirable perserverence. Once McCain's lead became mathematically insurmountable by a comfortable margin, and even Romney handed his endorsement to McCain, Huck's refusal to call it quits left most of us scratching our heads over why someone would continue to waste his time paddling upstream in a sinking canoe.
Which leads us to where we are today, after another crushing defeat. Huckabee's continued refusal to defer to McCain and strained attempts to find silver linings where none exist are flat-out annoying and downright painful to watch. Huck has become the deceptively cute little dog that won't stop yipping and biting at the pantlegs of the otherwise decided GOP Primary despite its polite attempts to gently shake him off without sending him across the room and into the wall. Mike Huckabee, your "this thing ain't over yet" approach simply has stopped being cute. The fat lady has sung. It's time to clear the path for McCain, and let him go about the important business of bringing the party together to defeat the Forces of Evil come November.
Is anyone else as annoyed about this as I am? Sound off, after the jump....
But don't tell that to Mike Huckabee, who despite having slightly less than a snowball's chance of surviving the fires of the Hell in which he no doubt believes, has vowed to remain in the race to provide conservative voters with a "voice."
And so completes the comically tragic evolution of candidate Huckabee (in the figurative sense, Mike - we know you don't believe you "descended from monkeys"). In the Beginning, when he won the Iowa caucuses against all odds and on a shoestring budget, he was the resilient, resourceful candidate. His vow to soldier on after narrow losses in New Hampshire and South Carolina signaled a steadfast resolve that was inspiring, if not altogether agreeable. After he lost Super Tuesday, his decision to remain in the race against impossible odds in the name of democracy demonstrated, if nothing else, admirable perserverence. Once McCain's lead became mathematically insurmountable by a comfortable margin, and even Romney handed his endorsement to McCain, Huck's refusal to call it quits left most of us scratching our heads over why someone would continue to waste his time paddling upstream in a sinking canoe.
Which leads us to where we are today, after another crushing defeat. Huckabee's continued refusal to defer to McCain and strained attempts to find silver linings where none exist are flat-out annoying and downright painful to watch. Huck has become the deceptively cute little dog that won't stop yipping and biting at the pantlegs of the otherwise decided GOP Primary despite its polite attempts to gently shake him off without sending him across the room and into the wall. Mike Huckabee, your "this thing ain't over yet" approach simply has stopped being cute. The fat lady has sung. It's time to clear the path for McCain, and let him go about the important business of bringing the party together to defeat the Forces of Evil come November.
Is anyone else as annoyed about this as I am? Sound off, after the jump....
Friday, February 8, 2008
How Stimulating!
It looks as though Congress has just passed the much talked-about, $150 billion "economic stimulus package" that will surely be signed by Dubya in the next few days. There are many interesting observations that can be made about this piece of legislation, but for now, I'd just like to talk about how (1) the bill highlights how both political parties (well, maybe not so much the Dems) so predictably go into Spineless Mode when the general election is only months away, and (2) which Americans won't be getting jack shit in terms of a tax rebate, and why I think it's just plain stupid.
As for the first issue, this bill epitomizes big-g0vernment, interventionist, anti-laissez faire economics at a time when the country is already up to its eyeballs in debt. But does anyone think that the Repubs would take a stand against passing it? Not when they're so at risk of losing the White House come November, that's for sure. In the current election year poltical climate, there'd be no way somone could oppose this bill without being portrayed as being against giving "working families" (see why I hate that term, below) much-needed relief during a faltering economy. Christ, it was President Bush who proposed the package in the first place.
With respect to the second issue - which Americans qualify for the tax rebates being doled out under the stimulus plan - I don't agree that the income eligibility cutoffs prescribed by the plan make the most sense. Currently, the plan basically would award rebates to individuals making up to $75K and families making up to $150K (with graduated decreases in rebates for families earning up to $170K). Being a "stimulus" package, it's obviously meant to stimulate the economy by putting money into the hands of consumers, who, ideally, will then put the money back into the economy (i.e., by spending or investing it). It seems to me, however, that middle and low-income Americans (the ones who qualify for the rebates under the package) are the ones most likely to hoard/save the money in their piggy banks in our current times of economic hardship. While I'm no Adam Smith (or John Kenneth Galbraith, for the sake of sounding more recent), I do understand that even keeping this money in the bank would give banks more money to lend, thereby moving more money, thereby theoretically having a positive trickle-down effect on the overall economy. (Or maybe I'm completely wrong on this. The Host will surely call me out on the particulars of this one.) But I presume that this is not what lawmakers are envisioning in passing this Plan. Rather, the idea is for people to spend their mini-windfalls on new DVD players at Wal Mart, or use them for down payments on a new Ford F250 XLT with a reinforced bed and extended cab. (Yay Consumerism!) If this is true, I find it interesting, but not surprising, that Congress actually expects - nay, wants - Americans to act imprudently (spending their tax rebates on consumer goods) instead of doing the smart thing (saving their money for the potentially increasingly difficult times ahead).
I also find the income eligibility cutoffs a little ridiculous. Much for the reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, high-income types are the ones most likely to spend this kind of previously unexpected "free" money without thinking twice, mainly because they're the ones most economically insulated from the otherwise gloomy circumstances. But alas, this package obviously is not for those of us "lucky" enough to make that kind of cash. As touted by Nancy Pelosi, it's for "working families." And we all know that families who bust their asses to earn more than $170K per year don't really "work." They're just lucky to be where they are - the beneficiaries of lifelong privilege or some profound cosmic stroke of good fortune - and it is their collective duty to take care of, or at least bear more of the tax burden for, those less fortunate, which apparently include "working families." For example, lawyers who bill 2300 hours per year, working countless late nights and weekends while barely putting a dent in their six-figure law school debt aren't "working." They make too much money, and are therefore evil! (Thankfully, I don't exactly fit this description, except for the part about being evil.)
In closing, I'd like to thank my blog-mates for allowing me to shoot from the hip one more time.
As for the first issue, this bill epitomizes big-g0vernment, interventionist, anti-laissez faire economics at a time when the country is already up to its eyeballs in debt. But does anyone think that the Repubs would take a stand against passing it? Not when they're so at risk of losing the White House come November, that's for sure. In the current election year poltical climate, there'd be no way somone could oppose this bill without being portrayed as being against giving "working families" (see why I hate that term, below) much-needed relief during a faltering economy. Christ, it was President Bush who proposed the package in the first place.
With respect to the second issue - which Americans qualify for the tax rebates being doled out under the stimulus plan - I don't agree that the income eligibility cutoffs prescribed by the plan make the most sense. Currently, the plan basically would award rebates to individuals making up to $75K and families making up to $150K (with graduated decreases in rebates for families earning up to $170K). Being a "stimulus" package, it's obviously meant to stimulate the economy by putting money into the hands of consumers, who, ideally, will then put the money back into the economy (i.e., by spending or investing it). It seems to me, however, that middle and low-income Americans (the ones who qualify for the rebates under the package) are the ones most likely to hoard/save the money in their piggy banks in our current times of economic hardship. While I'm no Adam Smith (or John Kenneth Galbraith, for the sake of sounding more recent), I do understand that even keeping this money in the bank would give banks more money to lend, thereby moving more money, thereby theoretically having a positive trickle-down effect on the overall economy. (Or maybe I'm completely wrong on this. The Host will surely call me out on the particulars of this one.) But I presume that this is not what lawmakers are envisioning in passing this Plan. Rather, the idea is for people to spend their mini-windfalls on new DVD players at Wal Mart, or use them for down payments on a new Ford F250 XLT with a reinforced bed and extended cab. (Yay Consumerism!) If this is true, I find it interesting, but not surprising, that Congress actually expects - nay, wants - Americans to act imprudently (spending their tax rebates on consumer goods) instead of doing the smart thing (saving their money for the potentially increasingly difficult times ahead).
I also find the income eligibility cutoffs a little ridiculous. Much for the reasons discussed in the previous paragraph, high-income types are the ones most likely to spend this kind of previously unexpected "free" money without thinking twice, mainly because they're the ones most economically insulated from the otherwise gloomy circumstances. But alas, this package obviously is not for those of us "lucky" enough to make that kind of cash. As touted by Nancy Pelosi, it's for "working families." And we all know that families who bust their asses to earn more than $170K per year don't really "work." They're just lucky to be where they are - the beneficiaries of lifelong privilege or some profound cosmic stroke of good fortune - and it is their collective duty to take care of, or at least bear more of the tax burden for, those less fortunate, which apparently include "working families." For example, lawyers who bill 2300 hours per year, working countless late nights and weekends while barely putting a dent in their six-figure law school debt aren't "working." They make too much money, and are therefore evil! (Thankfully, I don't exactly fit this description, except for the part about being evil.)
In closing, I'd like to thank my blog-mates for allowing me to shoot from the hip one more time.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
McCain & Dole: Perfect Pair
I recently had a very depressing conversation in which did my best not to despair that the GOP was nominating another Dole to be led to the electoral slaughter. This morning Romney called out the Dole for McCain endorsement as another example of how McCain is the establishment darling. McCain responds with this statement:
"Governor Romney's attack on Bob Dole is disgraceful, and Governor Romney should apologize. Bob Dole is a war hero who has spent his life in service to this nation and nobody has worked harder to build the Republican Party. Bob Dole deserves the respect of every American and certainly every Republican.
"Governor Romney denounced Ronald Reagan in the mid '90s while Bob Dole was working tirelessly to elect Republicans across the country. Governor Romney was missing from those fights when I was standing with President Reagan and Senator Dole to build the Republican Party.
"Governor Romney is trying to divide the Republican Party and his disparagement of one of our Party's greatest leaders is a sad commentary on Governor Romney's increasingly bitter campaign."
So much for moving on from the GOP politics of the past. I guess you have to think Dole was a good nominee to lead this country to greatness. And of course how dare anyone deny the ultimate authority of Bob Dole, he's a veteran! This is typically disgraceful conduct by McCain against an honest statement. Hiding behind miltary service and intentionally mischaracterizing fellow Republicans - I'd rather not get on that bandwagon, thanks.
"Governor Romney's attack on Bob Dole is disgraceful, and Governor Romney should apologize. Bob Dole is a war hero who has spent his life in service to this nation and nobody has worked harder to build the Republican Party. Bob Dole deserves the respect of every American and certainly every Republican.
"Governor Romney denounced Ronald Reagan in the mid '90s while Bob Dole was working tirelessly to elect Republicans across the country. Governor Romney was missing from those fights when I was standing with President Reagan and Senator Dole to build the Republican Party.
"Governor Romney is trying to divide the Republican Party and his disparagement of one of our Party's greatest leaders is a sad commentary on Governor Romney's increasingly bitter campaign."
So much for moving on from the GOP politics of the past. I guess you have to think Dole was a good nominee to lead this country to greatness. And of course how dare anyone deny the ultimate authority of Bob Dole, he's a veteran! This is typically disgraceful conduct by McCain against an honest statement. Hiding behind miltary service and intentionally mischaracterizing fellow Republicans - I'd rather not get on that bandwagon, thanks.
Re: "Sweep the Leg"
Nice rant Cal, but as you might guess I strongly disagree. I find it a bit confusing that your approach to the GOP establishment is to "move it the hell outta the way" by electing a senior Senator who has been in Washington since 1982! I'd love to see us throw out the "ineffectual horde of do-nothing 'insiders'" but how do you make the leap from that desire to the co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold and the McCain-Kennedy immigration bills? I too love John McCain's F-You mindset towards the Islamic threat, but the man has almost no proclivity nor stated interest in economic issues (you know, like taxes, putting food on people's tables, and "properly empowered private enterprise") and his actions on judges leaves more than a little to be desired. You want affordable health care? Good luck with that when amnesty for illegals under President McCain execerbates the already swollen unpaid medical care crisis in the border states.
My support for Romney has never been about rooting for a perfect candidate. I do believe that Mitt is the most conservative option among the candidates who can win in November without selling out conservatives. I don't see how he gets lumped in with "the Bible-beating, born-again douche bags who hijacked our party for the last 8 years" but hey, we don't have to agree on everything. In fact we don't even have to agree that stem cell destruction, abortion, sex education, anti-creationism and such are important enough for a presidential campaign (I happen to think that as cornerstones of our culture, they very much matter, but again, we don't have to agree on this).
As far as the war and taxes thing, I don't get fired up about the guy who voted against the Bush tax cuts, and I worry less about how Hillary will follow through in Iraq once it's her responsibility than I do about how McCain's history of crossing the aisle on major domestic issues and stabbing his party in the back. Again, maybe I'm just one of these "goobers" who think how we approach the lives we live is important, but please tell me where we have a dire international military position if Mitt gets elected. Really, how much of a difference do you see in how we follow though in the GWOT in McCain v. Romney? Other than the likelihood of pre-emptive attack being certainly higher with McCain, I don't see a huge difference and I can even argue that McCain's temper creates a risk to peaceful outcomes.
Romney at least has an executive track record, both private and public, and has found solutions to problems without selling out. He got a health care plan in place in the most liberal state in the union and did in a federalist manner with the support of the Heritage Foundation. He drew the line on stem cell research, repaired the budget without raising personal income taxes, and promoted and increased the number of Charter Schools in the Massachusetts. Mitt's not perfect, but for conservatives I think it's a fairly easy choice.
My support for Romney has never been about rooting for a perfect candidate. I do believe that Mitt is the most conservative option among the candidates who can win in November without selling out conservatives. I don't see how he gets lumped in with "the Bible-beating, born-again douche bags who hijacked our party for the last 8 years" but hey, we don't have to agree on everything. In fact we don't even have to agree that stem cell destruction, abortion, sex education, anti-creationism and such are important enough for a presidential campaign (I happen to think that as cornerstones of our culture, they very much matter, but again, we don't have to agree on this).
As far as the war and taxes thing, I don't get fired up about the guy who voted against the Bush tax cuts, and I worry less about how Hillary will follow through in Iraq once it's her responsibility than I do about how McCain's history of crossing the aisle on major domestic issues and stabbing his party in the back. Again, maybe I'm just one of these "goobers" who think how we approach the lives we live is important, but please tell me where we have a dire international military position if Mitt gets elected. Really, how much of a difference do you see in how we follow though in the GWOT in McCain v. Romney? Other than the likelihood of pre-emptive attack being certainly higher with McCain, I don't see a huge difference and I can even argue that McCain's temper creates a risk to peaceful outcomes.
As much as I cringe at the mere thought of another Clinton in the White House, I am torn about supporting McCain as a nominee. I just do not believe that he is a conservative beyond defense issues, and I think we are on the verge of crushing the conservative movement and re-inforcing the ever larger nanny-state government if he wins.
Romney at least has an executive track record, both private and public, and has found solutions to problems without selling out. He got a health care plan in place in the most liberal state in the union and did in a federalist manner with the support of the Heritage Foundation. He drew the line on stem cell research, repaired the budget without raising personal income taxes, and promoted and increased the number of Charter Schools in the Massachusetts. Mitt's not perfect, but for conservatives I think it's a fairly easy choice.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Sweep the Leg
Well, obviously, we know now that McCain, God bless his heart, won Florida last week. So let's hope the Host's prediction of a Super Tuesday sweep by the Florida victor comes to fruition. This former Romney fan thinks McCain is the clear choice among the candidates as the next leader of the Free World. I am sick and tired of watching that flip-flopping, straw-polling, pandering goody-two-shoes Romney woodenly deliver platitudes and disingenuously invoke Ronald Reagan to his "social conservative" base. If I hear "Washington is Broken," or how it supposedly has been corrupted by "Washington insiders" one more time, I'm gonna shoot my TV with a 12-guage shotgun, Elvis-style. (Romney surely would understand, being a "life-long" gun supporter and hunter of various "varmints" around his house and the like - what a joke!). Romney's M.O. of constantly criticizing Washington as an ineffectual horde of do-nothing "insiders" rings especially hollow given he's too chicken shit to have actually lobbed a single volley at President Bush - instead constantly emphasizing what a great leader Dubya has supposedly been. His transparent ass-kissing of the GOP "establishment" is insulting.
And who fucking cares about the "establishment" anyway? I say move it the hell outta the way, and make way for a new era, a new "establishment" - one marked by sensible, pragmatic governance that focuses on what's important: keeping taxes low (which does not necessarily mean cutting them whenever you want to curry political favor); beefing up national security; keeping radical Islam at bay, if not eradicating its threat altogether; fueling a strong and thriving economy built not on government subsidy, but on properly empowered private enterprise; giving our public schools the tools to provide our young citizens with a top-quality, free and appropriate education; and making sure that no American is denied the very best health care because of his economic status or inability to pay. These are the things that Repubs like me who are fed up with the Bible-beating, born-again douche bags who hijacked our party for the last 8 years want going forward. While the "social issues" have some superficial appeal, at the end of the day, they don't produce American jobs, they don't put food on people's tables, they don't educate our youth, they don't result in a more efficient military strategy at home or abroad, they don't lower my taxes.
Now, would I like to see a country where, for example, abortion is most commonly considered taboo, even by the nut jobs at NOW? Where human embryos aren't systematically created and destroyed for experimental purposes? Where marriage between a man and a woman remains a sacred institution and recognized as the best means of raising our children? Of course I would. But to make those issues, or other "social issues" like whether Creationism or sex education should be taught in our schools (for which the answers, by the way, are certainly "no," and "yes," respectively) a focus of the next Presidential campaign is at worst absurd, and at best a complete and utter waste of time, energy, and resources.
So here's to hoping McCain mops the Primary floor with Romney's unctuous ass this Super Tuesday. It's time we get the GOP on track toward doing something it hasn't done in 20 years: actually leading this Country to greatness.
And who fucking cares about the "establishment" anyway? I say move it the hell outta the way, and make way for a new era, a new "establishment" - one marked by sensible, pragmatic governance that focuses on what's important: keeping taxes low (which does not necessarily mean cutting them whenever you want to curry political favor); beefing up national security; keeping radical Islam at bay, if not eradicating its threat altogether; fueling a strong and thriving economy built not on government subsidy, but on properly empowered private enterprise; giving our public schools the tools to provide our young citizens with a top-quality, free and appropriate education; and making sure that no American is denied the very best health care because of his economic status or inability to pay. These are the things that Repubs like me who are fed up with the Bible-beating, born-again douche bags who hijacked our party for the last 8 years want going forward. While the "social issues" have some superficial appeal, at the end of the day, they don't produce American jobs, they don't put food on people's tables, they don't educate our youth, they don't result in a more efficient military strategy at home or abroad, they don't lower my taxes.
Now, would I like to see a country where, for example, abortion is most commonly considered taboo, even by the nut jobs at NOW? Where human embryos aren't systematically created and destroyed for experimental purposes? Where marriage between a man and a woman remains a sacred institution and recognized as the best means of raising our children? Of course I would. But to make those issues, or other "social issues" like whether Creationism or sex education should be taught in our schools (for which the answers, by the way, are certainly "no," and "yes," respectively) a focus of the next Presidential campaign is at worst absurd, and at best a complete and utter waste of time, energy, and resources.
So here's to hoping McCain mops the Primary floor with Romney's unctuous ass this Super Tuesday. It's time we get the GOP on track toward doing something it hasn't done in 20 years: actually leading this Country to greatness.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
