Yes, we damn well can

Yes, we can. We can put America-centrism behind us. We can celebrate the fact that our new President gave his first TV interview to an Arab network. We can stop dictating and start listening, as President Obama told the Arabs we need to do. Yes, we can. We can listen to “the Arab street” (I hate that term so much, I can’t begin to tell you) and make sure we don’t do anything they interpret as “dictating.” Yes, we can. We can make those who think the only good Jew is a dead Jew think we are weak, pathetic losers who don’t understand power politics. We can embolden those who want to blow up more or our buildings and planes by assuring them that we won’t let the big, bad FBI types listen to their cell phone calls, and if we somehow do manage to arrest them even without surveillance, we won’t let the even badder CIA types be mean to them during interrogation. Yes, we can.

I watched an inane man-on-the-street interview on CNN tonight with a young Saudi couple who thought Obama’s interview was just swell. Plenty of pro-Obama platitudes from both the man and his wife, who was wrapped from head to toe in black cloth with only her eyes showing. The reporter said both husband and wife were young and well-educated, and they both spoke slightly accented but very good English. And yet there she was, wrapped up like a black mummy because as we all know, women showing their noses and ankles is a dangerous abomination in the eyes of God.

It made me think of a post from the Anchoress (with whose opinion on all three outfits I agree 100%) on Michelle Obama’s inauguration outfits. President Obama and all the other leftists who think we should listen more and dictate less have got to know that “the Arab street” thinks the First Lady is a whore for baring her shoulders and ought to be wrapped up in a black sheet like a decent woman — and her mouth shut too, along with all us other brazen American broads who don’t know our place.

Well guess what, Mr. Arab Street? Even if we do listen more and dictate less, and you bastards work up the nerve to try another round of 9/11 on us, the pendulum will swing back the other way, and even the Obama Mamas (who have no interest in trading their low-rise jeans in for burqas) will be calling for less listening and more dictating. We Americans can be pretty complacent and pretty stupid when we don’t feel threatened, and right now most of us feel pretty safe after seven years of George W. Bush keeping us that way. But if things turn ugly, we can find our courage and our brains again. Yes, we can. We damn well can.

Comments 8

  1. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “They also got rid of the fly blown 55 MPH speed limit. Thank you!! They also blocked many of Clinton’s moves. It fell apart after two years but Newt deserves much credit. He may not have been my choice as conservative leader but he is so much better than what we have and have had.”

    Obviously there is much to be said for Newt, both positive and negative. Like you say, and it is about all you can say in the positive about that period of time that the Reps held sway under Clinton: They got rid of the stupid 55 mph speed limit.

    But that is about all. The Republicans, under Newt caved to Bill Clinton in the 1995 budget debate. They gave him essentiall for the rest of his horrid tenure everything he wanted in the budgets not wanting a repeat of ’95.

    They could have impeached him for selling our national security secrets to China for campaign donations (Google “Loral-Clinton-China”). They had him, but instead they fumbled it by going after him for soliciting oral sex from a federal employee. Yes, since Monic worked under Bill Clinton-no pun intended-it was against Federal Code for him to engage in sexual relations with her. But we all know how that worked out.

    Then Newt embarasses the movement by resigning under his own scandal involving a much younger woman while impeachment proceedings are just getting under way!

    All in all, I’d say he was a negative.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:22 pm
  2. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “I think Bowden’s reasoning on abortion being the deciding factor is flawed.”

    Well given the number of times you have to be corrected or admit you were wrong we’ll take that with a grain of salt.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:23 pm
  3. Dan wrote:

    You just can’t be civil can you Bowden?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 5:28 pm
  4. Bowden Russell wrote:

    “You just can’t be civil can you Bowden?”

    We tried that route with you and it failed. Remember?

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 7:34 pm
  5. Brigette Russell wrote:

    I actually don’t think abortion is the deciding factor, and started to explain why but decided to save it as a new blog post draft, which I’ll get around to finishing God knows when.

    As I’ve written before, I think my fellow citizens are in large part shallow sheep with short attention spans, and they’re captivated by charismatic personalities (Reagan, Clinton, Obama) and turned off by dull ones (Dole, Kerry, McCain). Whether those charismatic personalities are Left or Right is secondary to many people who actually boast that they vote for the person, not the party. As though that makes them smart or noble. Good Lord. All it makes them is utterly oblivious to the issues.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 8:44 pm
  6. Brigette Russell wrote:

    You just can’t be civil can you Bowden?

    Didn’t you know I started this blog so Bowden could have a place to vent his anger and frustration with politics and the other insanities of daily life so he could be pleasant and fun at home with the kids and me? It’s worked like a charm, too! :-)

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 8:54 pm
  7. Dan wrote:

    Its worth noting that while Reagan, Clinton, and Obama are certainly charismatic personalities, all three won office primarily because of the state that their opposite-party predecessor was leaving the economy in. They all offered optimistic messages of renewal while their opponents essentially offered more of the same.

    The really amazing this is that H W Bush managed to go from an 80+% approval rating in late 1990/early 1991 to a sub 45% approval rating in autumn of 1992 – based almost entirely on the economy and Bush’s seeming disinterest in doing anything about it.

    Re: Bowden I’ve seen the attitude he takes here and in comments on other websites and I’m under the impression that he’s an internet tough guy who’s probably perfectly nice in real life, but I don’t really see any point in responding to him anymore so I won’t be. Maybe he can switch to decaf instead.

    Posted 04 Feb 2009 at 11:10 pm
  8. Bowden Russell wrote:

    Bowden I’ve seen the attitude he takes here and in comments on other websites and I’m under the impression that he’s an internet tough guy who’s probably perfectly nice in real life, but I don’t really see any point in responding to him anymore so I won’t be. Maybe he can switch to decaf instead.

    Oh poor Dan, Bowden doesn’t roll over for his irrational rants which are filled with half-truths and blatant inaccuracies.

    I see you’ve been googling/stalking me on other websites Dan. You, like Victor Jimenez, appear to have way too much time on your hands.

    Posted 05 Feb 2009 at 5:04 am

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *