Monday, February 11, 2008
Babaloo's New Oath of Allegiance
"I'm no McCain fan, and I will not vote [for] him. Even if that means allowing a Democrat to be elected." — Ventanita, "No Cubans Torturing In Hanoi," Babalú, February 10, 2008
Glad to Be Able to Keep a Promise to George
We promised in a previous thread to find something of George Moneo's to praise. We had despaired that perhaps we had made a promise we would not in good faith be able to keep. But, happily, George this morning did say something wise and funny that we could endorse.
Val asked the question: "Why would someone "change her name to 'Medea,' a woman who, in the Euripedes' tragedy, takes the sword to her two sons to spite her husband?"
George offers this answer:
"Val, it's perfectly understandable. She's a communist and a feminist. Both are philosophies of hate and envy. One for wealth, the other for penises."
Now that is good.
The rest of his comment is overkill and you can read it over at Babalú.
Val asked the question: "Why would someone "change her name to 'Medea,' a woman who, in the Euripedes' tragedy, takes the sword to her two sons to spite her husband?"
George offers this answer:
"Val, it's perfectly understandable. She's a communist and a feminist. Both are philosophies of hate and envy. One for wealth, the other for penises."
Now that is good.
The rest of his comment is overkill and you can read it over at Babalú.
"ConeheadCon" Strikes Again
I cannot even say that we are witnessing the unravelling of a fine mind, for his anti-McCain campaign of the last few weeks at Babalú has revealed his mind to be turgid, derivative and fanatical, and I now feel as much contempt for it as Henry himself once did for the mental processes of Ron Paul's followers. In reaction to his recent posts I am tempted to write, almost every time, that he has reached a new low, because he does continually. When a man checks his sense of shame at the door, there is nothing so despicable that he won't consider. Because I know that he will, somehow, top himself, I have refrained from labelling his latest post his worst or most offensive.
In this his latest disgrace Henry features photos of three of the failed Republican candidates and McCain, who has it in his power should he so choose to rescue any of them from irrelevancy by picking one as his running mate. Borrowing a trick from his old friend Rick (formerly of SotP) he has chosen the least flattering picture he could find of the war hero but used the official campaign portraits of the draft dodgers (for that's another way to distinguish between McCain and the rest of the field). He has labelled Huckabee "So(uth)Con," Thompson "Fis(cal)Con," "Guiliani "Def(ense)Con" and McCain "NonCon." How witty is our Henry! Just what we might expect from a political animal since the age of 5. In fact, I think a 5-year old might have done as well. I suppose that Henry thinks he's being cute or making some kind of point. I just hope that it means he has used-up all the borrowed arguments in his carpetbag and is reduced now to simplistic sloganeering (the kind of thing he does for a living).
What would Henry call Obama and Hillary? Nothing nasty, of course, since they are now allies in the war against McCain. How about "LipstickLib" and "ButchLib?"
As for Henry, we would suggest "ConeheadCon."
In this his latest disgrace Henry features photos of three of the failed Republican candidates and McCain, who has it in his power should he so choose to rescue any of them from irrelevancy by picking one as his running mate. Borrowing a trick from his old friend Rick (formerly of SotP) he has chosen the least flattering picture he could find of the war hero but used the official campaign portraits of the draft dodgers (for that's another way to distinguish between McCain and the rest of the field). He has labelled Huckabee "So(uth)Con," Thompson "Fis(cal)Con," "Guiliani "Def(ense)Con" and McCain "NonCon." How witty is our Henry! Just what we might expect from a political animal since the age of 5. In fact, I think a 5-year old might have done as well. I suppose that Henry thinks he's being cute or making some kind of point. I just hope that it means he has used-up all the borrowed arguments in his carpetbag and is reduced now to simplistic sloganeering (the kind of thing he does for a living).
What would Henry call Obama and Hillary? Nothing nasty, of course, since they are now allies in the war against McCain. How about "LipstickLib" and "ButchLib?"
As for Henry, we would suggest "ConeheadCon."
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Notable & Hard to Swallow: McCain Is Leading
"The first thing you'll notice of course is that McCain is currently polling ahead of both potential opponents. That's good news for him I suppose." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Tracking Electability," Babalú, February 10, 2008
Yes, one would suppose, wouldn't one?
Unless one were Henry Gómez.
Good news for McCain and the Republicans is bad news for him.
Yes, one would suppose, wouldn't one?
Unless one were Henry Gómez.
Good news for McCain and the Republicans is bad news for him.
Notable & Predictable: Henry Praises Ron Paul
"Paul says we need to get back to the ideas of the founding fathers and I agree but If France had subscribed to the isolationist philosophy that Ron Paul espouses, back in the 1770s, we'd all be singing 'God Save the Queen.' Something to consider" — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Obama Will Win the Democrat Nomination," Babalú, February 9, 2008
I predicted that Henry Gómez would end up supporting Ron Paul and now he likens Paul's ideas to those of the Founding Fathers, with some reservations about isolationism (which was George Washington's creed, remember, "no entangling alliances?"). Sometimes, I ask myself, why do I bother? I can read him like a book and the book is of absolutely no value. Still, so long as Babalú is perceived in many circles to represent the views of most Cuban exiles, it must be fought at all costs even if it requires me to parse the writings of a political ingénue with an imperfect knowledge of history. It should be noted that Spain — which Henry hates — was also crucial in securing America's independence. Not only did Cubans, then Spanish subjects, fight at Yorktown alongside the French and Americans but their female relatives underwrote the costs of the Yorktown campaign, which resulted in the surrender of the British and the realization of American independence. And for this neither Spain nor France — and much less the Cubans — demanded a naval base on Chesapeake Bay.
I predicted that Henry Gómez would end up supporting Ron Paul and now he likens Paul's ideas to those of the Founding Fathers, with some reservations about isolationism (which was George Washington's creed, remember, "no entangling alliances?"). Sometimes, I ask myself, why do I bother? I can read him like a book and the book is of absolutely no value. Still, so long as Babalú is perceived in many circles to represent the views of most Cuban exiles, it must be fought at all costs even if it requires me to parse the writings of a political ingénue with an imperfect knowledge of history. It should be noted that Spain — which Henry hates — was also crucial in securing America's independence. Not only did Cubans, then Spanish subjects, fight at Yorktown alongside the French and Americans but their female relatives underwrote the costs of the Yorktown campaign, which resulted in the surrender of the British and the realization of American independence. And for this neither Spain nor France — and much less the Cubans — demanded a naval base on Chesapeake Bay.
Still Obsessed With Obama's Youth and Repulsed by "U-G-L-Y" McCain
Henry, the political prognosticator who never fails to be wrong, is now predicting that "Obama will win the Democrat nomination." What he formerly thought "inevitable, the nomination of Hillary Clinton by the Democrats, now seems unlikely." In other words, Henry is wrong now in order to be right later. Having already been wrong twice about who would win the Republican presidential nomination, he now stands the chance of being wrong a second time about the Democratic nominee as well. How a pundit who has been wrong so consistently about everything can continue to opine on a subject about which he has already proven himself to be wholly ignorant is the real triumph of hope over experience. No "expert" on any subject, not even a self-proclaimed one or erstwhile prodigy of 5, having been completely wrong time and time again and thoroughly discredited, would continue to burden the patience of his readers unless becoming a public joke were his goal.
Henry's infatuation with Obama is not news. We have commented on it several times here. In English public schools it's known as a "crush," part hero-worship and part eroticized attraction. Someone thus infatuated is known there as a "fag" — that's how the word entered the common parlance, though the "crush" need not be sexual in practice (though it often is).
Henry seems obsessed with Obama's youth, or, rather, his youthful appearance (he's ten years older than Henry) and believes that it will suffice to defeat McCain because he is old and "U-G-L-Y." He is not the only one of this opinion. In a new low even for him, Fantomas, Henry's new nemesis, attributes McCain's "ugliness" to his "war wounds." (The beatings which McCain sustained at the hands of Cuban torturers at the Hanoi Hilton left his face slightly asymmetrical and prevent him from raising his arms above his chest). Contemptible as is fantomas for even saying this, he is less contemptible than Henry who merely implies it and is too smart or craven to avow what he really means. I hope we still live in an America where wounds or disfigurements sustained in her defense are still regarded as badges of honor and not bar sinisters. It would signal the utter debasement of this country if its obsession with youth and physical beauty were carried to such an extreme that it would trump honor, courage and sacrifice.
If you are a woman or a gay guy — a shallow woman or shallow gay guy — maybe the contest will be decided along those lines. However, I do not think that Henry's Theory that the youngest and most attractive candidate (or anyway the least U-G-L-Y or disfigured) always wins will hold for the generation population.
Henry is also trumpetting Obama's oratorical skills in addition to his physical attractions. Since his words are hollow and non-committal on most subjects, as, indeed, has been his entire political career, it is his appearance and style of delivery, then, that captivates Henry: the image not the substance. So, then, we are back to square one — Henry likes the cut of Obama's gib.
Henry's infatuation with Obama is not news. We have commented on it several times here. In English public schools it's known as a "crush," part hero-worship and part eroticized attraction. Someone thus infatuated is known there as a "fag" — that's how the word entered the common parlance, though the "crush" need not be sexual in practice (though it often is).
Henry seems obsessed with Obama's youth, or, rather, his youthful appearance (he's ten years older than Henry) and believes that it will suffice to defeat McCain because he is old and "U-G-L-Y." He is not the only one of this opinion. In a new low even for him, Fantomas, Henry's new nemesis, attributes McCain's "ugliness" to his "war wounds." (The beatings which McCain sustained at the hands of Cuban torturers at the Hanoi Hilton left his face slightly asymmetrical and prevent him from raising his arms above his chest). Contemptible as is fantomas for even saying this, he is less contemptible than Henry who merely implies it and is too smart or craven to avow what he really means. I hope we still live in an America where wounds or disfigurements sustained in her defense are still regarded as badges of honor and not bar sinisters. It would signal the utter debasement of this country if its obsession with youth and physical beauty were carried to such an extreme that it would trump honor, courage and sacrifice.
If you are a woman or a gay guy — a shallow woman or shallow gay guy — maybe the contest will be decided along those lines. However, I do not think that Henry's Theory that the youngest and most attractive candidate (or anyway the least U-G-L-Y or disfigured) always wins will hold for the generation population.
Henry is also trumpetting Obama's oratorical skills in addition to his physical attractions. Since his words are hollow and non-committal on most subjects, as, indeed, has been his entire political career, it is his appearance and style of delivery, then, that captivates Henry: the image not the substance. So, then, we are back to square one — Henry likes the cut of Obama's gib.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Fred Thompson Endorses John McCain
I've said it here several times already: Fred Thompson will endorse John McCain and he has today. This does not make me a soothsayer because it is only to be expected that a loyal Republican would endorse his party's candidate for president. It would have been news if he had declined to do so, but I doubt that any prominent Republicans will. This leaves only unreconstructed Southerners and toothless ideologues like George and Henry to oppose him with (or without) the party.
I would urge Henry and George not be crestfallen by this news but to embrace it as the lifeline which it is for them. There would be no chance that McCain would pick Thompson as his running-mate unless he endorsed him while his endorsement could still do him some good. So now Thompson is in the running for vice-president and his chances are much better of being on the national ticket than at any other time in the campaign. Thompson has proven that he is a good soldier and that's all that a vice-president needs to be. Although Thompson's characterization of balseros as "suitcase bombers" still irks me as does McCain's support for the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy, I, unlike George and Henry, do not believe that I have been entrusted by divine warrant to pick the Republican ticket, and I could offer the ticket of McCain-Thompson my full support not for its merits alone but because of the great danger posed to the future of this country and Cuba by the Clintons and/or Obama.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/mac_says_thomps.html
I would urge Henry and George not be crestfallen by this news but to embrace it as the lifeline which it is for them. There would be no chance that McCain would pick Thompson as his running-mate unless he endorsed him while his endorsement could still do him some good. So now Thompson is in the running for vice-president and his chances are much better of being on the national ticket than at any other time in the campaign. Thompson has proven that he is a good soldier and that's all that a vice-president needs to be. Although Thompson's characterization of balseros as "suitcase bombers" still irks me as does McCain's support for the "Wet Foot/Dry Foot" policy, I, unlike George and Henry, do not believe that I have been entrusted by divine warrant to pick the Republican ticket, and I could offer the ticket of McCain-Thompson my full support not for its merits alone but because of the great danger posed to the future of this country and Cuba by the Clintons and/or Obama.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/mac_says_thomps.html
Cuba Art: How the Revolution Broke It In and Harnessed It
It's called "Deconstruction" and it really is a choice specimen of it. RSNLK is even better at it than Henry used to be before the prospect of a McCain presidency unhinged his febrile mind and turned him into Robespierre. In a few well-crafted sentences dripping with purest satire, RSNLK dissects with laser-like precision the turgid agitprop of the art critic of the august Barre Montpelier Argus Times. Jim Lowe, who is obviously destined for bigger and better things — because, of course, from the Argus Times one may hope to rise but need never fear descending lower — reviews with all the pretentiousness he can summon and whatever notes he took at college, in "¡Viva la Revolución!," 101, 201 and 301, "¡Cuba: Art and History from 1868 to Today," an exhibit at the Montreal Museum of Fine Arts.
This is the first art exhibit, in my recollection, which combines art with history; not history as an aid in placing the paintings in their historical context, but "History" as a co-equal motif which validates the art and ultimately subordinates it to its own purposes. Of course, "history" is used as a euphemism here; it is not "history" that the Cuban and Canadian curators mean, but, rather, history as propaganda. The paintings, arranged as they are into five historical periods, are intended to show not only artistic but political evolution, and fail miserably in that respect, of course, because although there has been evolution it has been in the other direction. The apex of Cuban art was precisely in the last two decades of the Republic (1938-1958), which coincides, also, with the most progressive and prosperous period in Cuban history. This is no less true for Cuban literature than for Cuban art or music. Indeed, it would be impossible to point to any field of creative human endeavour which was not affected negatively by the Cuban Revolution.
Why 1868 as the beginning of Cuban art? Cuban art was not born with the Ten Years' War (1868-78) for Cuban Independence. Revolutions do affect art, sometimes for the better (1868) and sometimes for the worse (1959). They can carry in their wake the seeds of a national art, as was the case with the French Revolution (the only good thing it produced); or, as in the case of Naziism and Bolshevism, revolutions can hinder and eventually stop the evolution of national art or replace it with national kitsch, as in Cuba.
There is a tendentious but easily transparent theme that runs through this entire exhibition. It is to depict pre-revolutionary Cuba as a squalid and dangerous place. It achieves this effect by relying on social realism, which always prefers the squalid over the beautiful and the ignoble over the noble, at least when depicting capitalist societies. It performs the reverse service when portraying the "glories" of Communism. It is that very duality which betrays its agenda and renders its social commentary worthless. An exhibit on U.S. history which relied principally on works of social realism to depict the evolution of American democracy would foreshadow the destruction of not only capitalism but the Republic itself. Cuba was destroyed but by the heroes of social realism, whose fanciful depictions of a hellish pre-Castro Cuba are now used to justify that destruction.
Eskil Lam, son of Wilfredo Lam, esteemed by many to be Cuba's greatest painter, refused to contribute any of his father's works in his possession to this exhibit, and, in an interview in The New York Times, even implied that his father would not have approved of the later stages of the Cuban Revolution because he was a "humanist" (but not enough of one to have ever denounced it). Wilfredo Lam was of Chinese-African heritage, studied to be a lawyer but opted to become a painter instead. Pre-revolutionary Cuban society, which was more colorblind than any that ever existed in the Western Hemisphere and the opposite in that respect to Castro's racially-polarized revolutionary "paradise," produced Lams, Carpentiers, Whites and even Batistas (for politics is an art, too) with such naturalness and regularity that no one ever thought to hold them up as "tokens" because they were the mainstream. In contrast, in nearly 50 years, the Castro regime has produced no writer or artist of note except those it "trained" in prisons and concentration camps.
***
Also read the comments by Ray and Alberto Cruz:
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007342.html
This is the first art exhibit, in my recollection, which combines art with history; not history as an aid in placing the paintings in their historical context, but "History" as a co-equal motif which validates the art and ultimately subordinates it to its own purposes. Of course, "history" is used as a euphemism here; it is not "history" that the Cuban and Canadian curators mean, but, rather, history as propaganda. The paintings, arranged as they are into five historical periods, are intended to show not only artistic but political evolution, and fail miserably in that respect, of course, because although there has been evolution it has been in the other direction. The apex of Cuban art was precisely in the last two decades of the Republic (1938-1958), which coincides, also, with the most progressive and prosperous period in Cuban history. This is no less true for Cuban literature than for Cuban art or music. Indeed, it would be impossible to point to any field of creative human endeavour which was not affected negatively by the Cuban Revolution.
Why 1868 as the beginning of Cuban art? Cuban art was not born with the Ten Years' War (1868-78) for Cuban Independence. Revolutions do affect art, sometimes for the better (1868) and sometimes for the worse (1959). They can carry in their wake the seeds of a national art, as was the case with the French Revolution (the only good thing it produced); or, as in the case of Naziism and Bolshevism, revolutions can hinder and eventually stop the evolution of national art or replace it with national kitsch, as in Cuba.
There is a tendentious but easily transparent theme that runs through this entire exhibition. It is to depict pre-revolutionary Cuba as a squalid and dangerous place. It achieves this effect by relying on social realism, which always prefers the squalid over the beautiful and the ignoble over the noble, at least when depicting capitalist societies. It performs the reverse service when portraying the "glories" of Communism. It is that very duality which betrays its agenda and renders its social commentary worthless. An exhibit on U.S. history which relied principally on works of social realism to depict the evolution of American democracy would foreshadow the destruction of not only capitalism but the Republic itself. Cuba was destroyed but by the heroes of social realism, whose fanciful depictions of a hellish pre-Castro Cuba are now used to justify that destruction.
Eskil Lam, son of Wilfredo Lam, esteemed by many to be Cuba's greatest painter, refused to contribute any of his father's works in his possession to this exhibit, and, in an interview in The New York Times, even implied that his father would not have approved of the later stages of the Cuban Revolution because he was a "humanist" (but not enough of one to have ever denounced it). Wilfredo Lam was of Chinese-African heritage, studied to be a lawyer but opted to become a painter instead. Pre-revolutionary Cuban society, which was more colorblind than any that ever existed in the Western Hemisphere and the opposite in that respect to Castro's racially-polarized revolutionary "paradise," produced Lams, Carpentiers, Whites and even Batistas (for politics is an art, too) with such naturalness and regularity that no one ever thought to hold them up as "tokens" because they were the mainstream. In contrast, in nearly 50 years, the Castro regime has produced no writer or artist of note except those it "trained" in prisons and concentration camps.
Also read the comments by Ray and Alberto Cruz:
http://www.babalublog.com/archives/007342.html
Friday, February 8, 2008
Does McCain Excite You?
"I am very doubtful that McCain can excite anyone." — Henry "Economist" Gómez, "Russert Hits the Nail on the head," Cuban-American Pundits, February 8, 2008
He sure can excite you, though.
For those who may be interested, Henry has moved the Anti-McCain Show from Babalú to his own modest blog, Cuban-American Pundits.
He sure can excite you, though.
For those who may be interested, Henry has moved the Anti-McCain Show from Babalú to his own modest blog, Cuban-American Pundits.
And Val said "Stop!" And They Stopped
Surely this cannot be possible — an entire day without even one post from George or Henry about the election; no prognostications of impending doom; no re-hashing of canards against McCain; no lamentations about his running mate if the "Huckster" or exultations if Fred Thompson; no roses thrown at Obama because of his supposed physical attractions; no "Hillary is invincible so why don't we just bend over for 4 years and get it over with." No, none of that today.
Val finally asserted himself and put an end to these proceedings which had turned the echo chamber into a house of horrors with all its customary cacophony. Civility, which has never been Babalú's strong point, was suffering the death of a thousand cuts this week. It seemed like everybody was just one comment away from insulting the other's mother. For once, these petite tyrants were not browbeating dissenters with impunity because everybody was a dissenter in one degree or another. They had only one choice — shut down the blog or take their medicine. They did not take it with good grace but they took it. Then Val, who stands to lose the most by Babalú's self-implosion, cried, "Stop!" And they did. But not before they had wasted the very last drop of credibility which Babalú had left, which, at the end, was being measured in drams.
Val & Company seemed to have forgotten that they, too, have a base and can't afford to alienate it any more than can John McCain — a useful lesson which they should take to heart when they enter the voting booth in November and cast their votes for McCain.
Val finally asserted himself and put an end to these proceedings which had turned the echo chamber into a house of horrors with all its customary cacophony. Civility, which has never been Babalú's strong point, was suffering the death of a thousand cuts this week. It seemed like everybody was just one comment away from insulting the other's mother. For once, these petite tyrants were not browbeating dissenters with impunity because everybody was a dissenter in one degree or another. They had only one choice — shut down the blog or take their medicine. They did not take it with good grace but they took it. Then Val, who stands to lose the most by Babalú's self-implosion, cried, "Stop!" And they did. But not before they had wasted the very last drop of credibility which Babalú had left, which, at the end, was being measured in drams.
Val & Company seemed to have forgotten that they, too, have a base and can't afford to alienate it any more than can John McCain — a useful lesson which they should take to heart when they enter the voting booth in November and cast their votes for McCain.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Mitt Romney: Gone Like His Father and Hopefully Never to Return
Babalú has just posted a You Tube video of Mitt Romney with the caption: "Take a Last Look."
That was the trouble. Nobody took a first look. They were that smart.
The Babalunian triad, however, was not. They were conned by this particular poseur and xenophobe endorsed by Tom Tancredo and afterwards by Henry and George.
The GOP had a miraculous deliverance from him and his money.
Let us also have a last look at Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney's Ten Biggest Gaffes
Guess Which Presidential Candidate Was a Mexican Anchor Baby?
The Continuing Saga of Mitt Romney, Mexican Anchor Baby
Mitt Romney: The Buck Stops With the Landscaper
That was the trouble. Nobody took a first look. They were that smart.
The Babalunian triad, however, was not. They were conned by this particular poseur and xenophobe endorsed by Tom Tancredo and afterwards by Henry and George.
The GOP had a miraculous deliverance from him and his money.
Let us also have a last look at Mitt Romney:
Mitt Romney's Ten Biggest Gaffes
Guess Which Presidential Candidate Was a Mexican Anchor Baby?
The Continuing Saga of Mitt Romney, Mexican Anchor Baby
Mitt Romney: The Buck Stops With the Landscaper
Notable & Lonely: Babalú's Voice of Reason
"Maybe we'll get lucky, maybe if McCain gets elected and castro inc. pisses him off he'll do something. I think he's a hot head who takes things personally, and there is the torture memory at the hands of Cuban agents he carries around. Hey, I'm just trying to be optimistic." — Ziva, "White House News," Babalú, February 7, 2008
When somebody loves someone he wants that someone to prosper. He does not admit pessimistic thoughts about its future. Its future to him is always bright whatever its present circumstances. Those who truly love may be overcautious but they will never be pessimistic. Only those who have lost hope in the object of their affection will ever frame its future in blackest hues.
So, yes, Ziva go ahead and be opmitistic. Nothing is gained by being pessimistic even if in the end our hopes at not realized. But I think that you are right and they are wrong: John McCain will be an active agent in the liberation of Cuba. His temperament would not allow him to be otherwise, and scores are not only settled in movies. It sometimes happens in real life, too.
When somebody loves someone he wants that someone to prosper. He does not admit pessimistic thoughts about its future. Its future to him is always bright whatever its present circumstances. Those who truly love may be overcautious but they will never be pessimistic. Only those who have lost hope in the object of their affection will ever frame its future in blackest hues.
So, yes, Ziva go ahead and be opmitistic. Nothing is gained by being pessimistic even if in the end our hopes at not realized. But I think that you are right and they are wrong: John McCain will be an active agent in the liberation of Cuba. His temperament would not allow him to be otherwise, and scores are not only settled in movies. It sometimes happens in real life, too.
Babaloo's Waterloos: When Ideology Trumps Common Sense
George Moneo has just announced that his latest will also be his last post on John McCain, need we say, by popular demand. The reprieve will only be until the convention, though it is welcome nonetheless. Henry, too, has promised to refrain from further comment and devote all his energies to the re-election of the Díaz-Balart brothers, who, in turn, have pledged to do everything in their power to get McCain elected.
The echo chamber apparently isn't working anymore. The Babalunians are losing their patience with these paint-by-the-numbers ideologues whose fealty to conservative principles wouldn't stop the xenophobes in their party from stripping them of their anchor baby citizenship and repatriating them to a country they don't know and obviously wouldn't want to know in its present circumstances. The pressure cooker is all good and well so long as they themselves are not trapped in it.
At every turn now Henry and George are being confronted by irate commenters who will have none of their version of real politik which entails sticking the country with four more years of the Clintons and/or wunderkind Obama as a purgative for the Republican Party's having supposedly abandoned the ideals of Ronald Reagan, except that installing Democrats in power was never any part of Reagan's "ideals." They should remember that the "Gipper" was a team player who supported Gerald Ford for president after losing the nomination to him and despite the fact that he personally despised everything the liberal Ford stood for. Reagan was not a turncoat and he knew how to bide his time. He would be enraged at the antics of sore losers who think it is more important for them to control the party than it is for the party to control the White House.
Much as the U.S. would be affected for the worse by 4 more years of the Clintons, it is nothing compared to what would befall Cuba in the interim. Castro knows it and is preparing to take advantage of that once in a lifetime opportunity to make Cuba a ward of the United States while keeping the communist system in place. He is going to retire from the "presidency" and invest it on a surrogate so that Hillary and/or Obama can negotiate with the regime without having their hands tied by present legislation which makes the lifting of the embargo almost impossible while Castro retains power. Obama has already said that he personally has no compunction about talking to Castro and is prepared to begin discussions with the regime without prior conditions, which means, as I've noted before, that they could be torturing a man in the next room and he'll just continue conceding his way to a rapprochement. Hillary, who has promised not to negotiate directly with Castro, has never said that she wouldn't talk to somebody else. Well, she's going to have that somebody else and all the cover she may require to lift the embargo and enthrone Castro's heirs in power forever.
This is what will happen if McCain loses, and this is what Henry and George are perfectly content should happen so long as they get to give McCain the finger. And let me not leave out Val, either: he thinks all this is "perfect."
The echo chamber apparently isn't working anymore. The Babalunians are losing their patience with these paint-by-the-numbers ideologues whose fealty to conservative principles wouldn't stop the xenophobes in their party from stripping them of their anchor baby citizenship and repatriating them to a country they don't know and obviously wouldn't want to know in its present circumstances. The pressure cooker is all good and well so long as they themselves are not trapped in it.
At every turn now Henry and George are being confronted by irate commenters who will have none of their version of real politik which entails sticking the country with four more years of the Clintons and/or wunderkind Obama as a purgative for the Republican Party's having supposedly abandoned the ideals of Ronald Reagan, except that installing Democrats in power was never any part of Reagan's "ideals." They should remember that the "Gipper" was a team player who supported Gerald Ford for president after losing the nomination to him and despite the fact that he personally despised everything the liberal Ford stood for. Reagan was not a turncoat and he knew how to bide his time. He would be enraged at the antics of sore losers who think it is more important for them to control the party than it is for the party to control the White House.
Much as the U.S. would be affected for the worse by 4 more years of the Clintons, it is nothing compared to what would befall Cuba in the interim. Castro knows it and is preparing to take advantage of that once in a lifetime opportunity to make Cuba a ward of the United States while keeping the communist system in place. He is going to retire from the "presidency" and invest it on a surrogate so that Hillary and/or Obama can negotiate with the regime without having their hands tied by present legislation which makes the lifting of the embargo almost impossible while Castro retains power. Obama has already said that he personally has no compunction about talking to Castro and is prepared to begin discussions with the regime without prior conditions, which means, as I've noted before, that they could be torturing a man in the next room and he'll just continue conceding his way to a rapprochement. Hillary, who has promised not to negotiate directly with Castro, has never said that she wouldn't talk to somebody else. Well, she's going to have that somebody else and all the cover she may require to lift the embargo and enthrone Castro's heirs in power forever.
This is what will happen if McCain loses, and this is what Henry and George are perfectly content should happen so long as they get to give McCain the finger. And let me not leave out Val, either: he thinks all this is "perfect."
OK, Here Are My Thousand Words For Today
President Barack Obama with Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alfred C. Sharpton.
Or how about this one:
The son he never had; the father he never had.
You are cordially invited to submit your own caption for this picture.
(And don't despair, I'll be posting a less graphic thousand words momentarily).
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Notable & Maybe Final : George Moneo Quits the Republican Party (Again)
"I'm leaving for good this time, John. I mean it. There's no coming back, John. There will be no reconciliations, no explanations, no justifications." — George Moneo, "Dear John," Babalú, February 6, 2008
George Moneo has now proclaimed that he, too, cannot support John McCain as the Republican candidate and has done Henry one better and announced that he is leaving the Republican Party (for the second time). We suppose that this time he is actually leaving for good unless they can clone Reagan's DNA.
Val Prieto cannot be very happy at these desertions. He has not uttered one word, but inside he's dying. He knows that McCain can hold a grudge and won't soon forget the pile-on to which he was subjected at Val's blog. What will this mean? Well, no more invitations to the White House for Val, no more conference calls, no more Christmas cards from the Executive Office, nada.
Val has been booted.
POSTSCRIPT:
RCAB is reliably informed that Val Prieto was not actually invited to the White House but to the Executive Building next to the White House. Well, he won't be invited to the Executive Building either in a McCain White House.
George Moneo has now proclaimed that he, too, cannot support John McCain as the Republican candidate and has done Henry one better and announced that he is leaving the Republican Party (for the second time). We suppose that this time he is actually leaving for good unless they can clone Reagan's DNA.
Val Prieto cannot be very happy at these desertions. He has not uttered one word, but inside he's dying. He knows that McCain can hold a grudge and won't soon forget the pile-on to which he was subjected at Val's blog. What will this mean? Well, no more invitations to the White House for Val, no more conference calls, no more Christmas cards from the Executive Office, nada.
Val has been booted.
POSTSCRIPT:
RCAB is reliably informed that Val Prieto was not actually invited to the White House but to the Executive Building next to the White House. Well, he won't be invited to the Executive Building either in a McCain White House.
Notable & Resigned: Henry Ends 33-Year Career As a Political Animal
The political animal since the age of 5 has taken a vow of political celibacy till 2012. He is willing, at last, to allow Babalú to resume being an anti-Castro blog rather than the anti-McCain blog he has made it lately. His personal animus towards McCain, which was at no time tempered by respect for or even recognition of his unwavering commitment to a free Cuba over his entire political career, and which, in the end, went so far afield as to turn the race into a beauty pageant, when no other comparison to the remaining candidates gave any of them the advantage over McCain, shows that Henry does not understand that enthroning the Clintons with Obama as their heir apparent is not an option preferable to supporting John McCain.
Exactly what does he think this country will look like in 2012 if the Clinton(X2)/Obama ticket is elected? Where does he expect the Castros to be in 2012? Still in power, certainly, and with the U.S. underwriting the regime. Is this acceptable to him? Not only is this scenario acceptable but he is actually hoping that both the U.S. and Cuba will be as messed-up as possible in 2012 so as to insure that golden boy Newt Gingrich or a Newt-clone can recapture the White House in a cakewalk and restore ideological purity to the Republican Party. In other words, throw the baby out with the bath water and hope that he finds his way to you in four years.
The Republican Party has lost its way — Henry is right there — and become a party without core principles (except nativism) but this has nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with fomenting divisions in American society rather than uniting Americans. The selection of John McCain as its candidate in 2008 is a timely and necessary corrective, which will, hopefully, distance the GOP from the slash and burn politics of all who want all or nothing and would prefer the party to go down to defeat rather than be proven wrong as wrong they undoubtedly are.
Exactly what does he think this country will look like in 2012 if the Clinton(X2)/Obama ticket is elected? Where does he expect the Castros to be in 2012? Still in power, certainly, and with the U.S. underwriting the regime. Is this acceptable to him? Not only is this scenario acceptable but he is actually hoping that both the U.S. and Cuba will be as messed-up as possible in 2012 so as to insure that golden boy Newt Gingrich or a Newt-clone can recapture the White House in a cakewalk and restore ideological purity to the Republican Party. In other words, throw the baby out with the bath water and hope that he finds his way to you in four years.
The Republican Party has lost its way — Henry is right there — and become a party without core principles (except nativism) but this has nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with fomenting divisions in American society rather than uniting Americans. The selection of John McCain as its candidate in 2008 is a timely and necessary corrective, which will, hopefully, distance the GOP from the slash and burn politics of all who want all or nothing and would prefer the party to go down to defeat rather than be proven wrong as wrong they undoubtedly are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
