Tuesday, December 21, 2010

The Boneheadedness of the LASCPs

The liberals and so-called progressives are having a field day gloating about ought-to-have-been president John McCain’s saying on Saturday, after Don’t Ask Don’t Tell was repealed, “I hope…we understand that we are doing great damage. Today is a very sad day.” The LASCPs are gleefully pointing out that in 2006, the perennial Arizona senator — without whose perspicacity Sarah Palin, his vice presidential running mate, wouldn’t have come to the forefront of American political life — sang this very different tune: “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it." Against all odds and common sense, a Pentagon study released earlier this month found that allowing sexual deviates to serve without even pretending to be interested in the sorts of things their normal buddies like — gals with protuberant breasts, in the boys’ case, and boys with cute tushes and a fat wallet in the gals’ — might be fine, and both the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff declared themselves undiscombobulated by the repeal.

To any common sense conservative it’s pretty clear that when McCain said, “The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it," what he was really saying, as any sensible person would have said, was actually, “Yeah, right; when Hell freezes over.” The LASCPs can be so helpless in the face of nuance or subtext! And these people imagine themselves capable of dealing effectively with Putin and Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez!

Sometimes, when I think of how much better off we would all be if McCain and Sarah had won in 2008, it makes me so sad and angry that I want to go into the wild and shoot something dead, or smash the windshields of cars with Obama or other socialist candidate bumperstickers.

There’s been a lot of speculation the past couple of weeks, since he pretty much wept through his 60 Minutes interview, about whether there’s something wrong with soon-to-be Speaker of the House John (Boo-Hoo) Boehner, something, that is, besides his having given Gov. Palin a hard time about the recent tax deal. (Sarah, bless her heart, didn’t think it did enough to ensure the ongoing comfort of the rich.) There are those who wonder if Boehner might be a bit too fond of his merlot, in spite of merlot having been portrayed in the 2005 Paul Giamatti vehicle Sideways as the wine of boneheads, or the mentally ill.

The whole episode serves to illustrate how much the country has degenerated morally under the stewardship of the Obamarxists. Years ago, when the would-be Democratic presidential candidate Edmund Muskie cried tears of anger or frustration because a New England newspaper had called his wife Jane awful names, he was immediately pronounced unworthy of high political office. America in those proud days wouldn’t tolerate a crybaby. When Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974 because of the LASCPs’ relentless plotting against him, did so much as a single tear escape his eyes as he trudged for the last time toward the presidential helicopter? Not one! Now there was a leader!

The only thing you can say in Boehner’s defense is that only those things that matter most to most right-thinking Americans — family, or our brave young persons in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the American Dream — get him blubbing. It isn’t, in other words, as though he turns on the waterworks if one of his secretary points out that he has soup on his tie, or if a fellow Congressman threatens to punch him in the nose for not supporting a particular bill.

Speaking of Gov. Palin, Gallup found last month that 52 percent of “us” hold an unfavorable view of her, and a NBC/Wall Street Journal poll gleefully reports that her negative rating has actually increased since the debut of Sarah Palin’s Third World Hellholes on TLC several weeks ago.

As a people, we can be disastrously shortsighted sometimes, and this is clearly one of them. But don’t bet against the tide turning dramatically in the next few months, as we now learn of Sarah’s plan to step boldly out of her comfort zone and into the mainstream media’s crosshairs. On the evening of January 17, she will debate Noam Chomsky and the notorious (the LASCPs would probably prefer acclaimed) feminist, democratic socialist, sociologist and political activist Barbara Ehrenreich on PBS, with Katie Couric moderating.

This time, Sarah won’t be the one embarrassed.

No comments:

Post a Comment