Saturday, December 06, 2008

Some Change!

It was quite a sickening spectacle to endure all of the sycophantic nonsense concerning the sudden messianic rise of a slick Chicago machine politician into the office of the U.S. presidency. With all of the wild and ecstatic hoo-hollering from the masses over this charlatan and his hollow sounding promises of CHANGE, even I was starting to think something really new and important was about happen.

No. I didn't really think that.

I am, though, beginning to get a better picture of what that word may actually mean to the anointed Savior of America and think that, so far, his initial moves have been quite impressive:

The first big momentous CHANGE that has occurred was his decision to bring the Clinton clan back into the Executive branch of the federal gummit. The nomination of war-hawk Hillary has drawn rave reviews from such fringe radicals as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Henry Kissinger.

Clinton era retread and political attack dog Rahm Emanuel is a nice touch for chief-of-staff as is Eric Holder (Attorney General) and John Podesta who also hail from that illustrious team of policy wonks and wise men who formerly infested the vaunted West Wing of the White House. Is James Carville not too far behind?

For Treasury Secretary we have Tim Geithner, the power-elite's flunky at the New York Federal Reserve. No surprise, since he's been touted by the likes of Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernake.

Geithner's resume is impressive: Kissinger and Associates, Council on Foreign Relations, International Monetary Fund and the G30. But he likes to fly-fish, play tennis, and surf, so I think that balances him out.

Bill Richardson, another leftover from the Clinton administration (Energy Secretary) is now going to be the Commerce Secretary. Does anybody out there know what actual duties that job entails? Or Energy for that matter? Oh, I almost forgot, he's also the most important Hispanic member of the team. Remember Roberto Gonzalez? You always gotta have at least one.

The current Bush appointed Defense Secretary Robert Gates has been invited to stay on to help keep the war machine humming as the bloody occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan continue unabated. The Messiah has hinted that he may want to attack Pakistan or Iran sometime in the near future so it's probably smart to have guys like Gates around when the need arises to implement further carnage.

So far, I'd say that's some pretty impressive CHANGE.

Can't wait to see what other NEW and exciting things unfold after the Holy Anointing on January 20th.

Is Maya Angelou going to read an Inaugural poem, again?


Devastatin' Dave said...

(sing)Don't stop thinking about tomorrow...

Devastatin' Dave said...

Now it's my turn...

If you voted for Obama, I don't want to hear you complain.

frank said...

Amen, Brother Beamis!

Don't forget that Hillary's appointment is unconstitutional and that Karl Rove called Obama's economic team first rate! Change indeed...

Audie said...

Nice job -- and great (first) comment, DD. Touche', and LOL, and all of that.

Good points, and I especially share your eye-rolling at Hillary's appointment. Could she please just go away? That appointment could easily end up being a disaster -- due either to her being over her head, or to Bill mucking it up somehow, or to Hillary and Obama's pretense that they've made up and all is nice and lovey-dovey now splintering apart under the strain of mutual contempt.

So, no argument from me, generally. Just 3 minor points:

1) As mentioned on Devastatin's blog, it is mainly you (anti-Obama) guys who are promoting the Messiah/Savior imagery. It fits into your strategies, obviously, so who can blame yas.

2) Some of us voted for Obama not because we thought anything was going to be radically different (or "changed") but because we were excited about being able to cast a vote in favor of an eloquent man with a functioning brain instead of an idiot (current president) or raging psycho (McCain), the latter of whom represented -- as much as we all can hate it -- the only other realistic choice in November.

My point is, don't think we all have hopes as high as those who have been emotionally swept away -- the country is pretty much heading straight for the dumpster, and no one's gonna change that -- and should we really be sad about it? -- but we nonetheless are happy to see him beat Hillary and then McCain. Some like college football, some like political contests (but we wish political debates had better looking cheerleaders).

3) Is James Carville not too far behind? That would be great! :-) Cajuns are far too underrepresented.

P.S. to DD, re: the second comment: That makes it sound like I have been missing out on 8 years of saying to you: "If you voted for Bush, I don't want to hear you complain." ??????

Devastatin' Dave said...


My second comment was an allusion to the canard "If you don't vote, you can't complain."

I haven't been in a voting booth since 1992, so I'm not responsible for G.W.

beamis said...

I'm NOT promoting the Messianic imagery or exploiting it beyond what currently exists abundantly in the wider culture.

It is hard to drive through the black sections of Chattanooga, especially the poorer ones, and not see on a multitude of street corners and vacant lots entrepreneurs selling Obama t-shirts and posters heavily laden with holy imagery and beams of heavenly light emanating from his angelic dome.

It's out there my friend. It's beyond my ken as to why, but it is.

Audie said...

Well, if it's the poorer, black neighborhoods, as you say.... I tend to lump MLK in with Jesus and a scant few others in human history, who spoke on behalf of the poor and oppressed in a way few of us have been able to fully comprehend or follow in practice. And, I think that it shouldn't be hard to imagine Obama as a similar figure for those people. He's headin' to the White House, after all, and it's not hard to see how that can be seen by some as evidence that they have, indeed, finally been delivered. Let the folks have their symbols, why don'tcha!

What I was referring to is folks such as yourself and Fox News taking that phenomenon and repeating it ad infinitum as if everyone who voted for Obama literally believed he was the Second Coming.

But whatever....

cleavis said...

What on earth are you all going to do if the man succeeds in implementing HIS agenda?

I know everyone is eager to have something to squawk about now while the man is still president-in-waiting but cabinet picks seem an odd choice.

The talking heads and fringe-o-blogs seem to think that just because we have had an intellectually weak president surrounded by strong advisers who set policy for the last 8 years that the model will persist into the future. Historically, Bush is an anomaly. Most presidents, especially the strong willed ones (for better or worse) have surrounded themselves with the most qualified apparatchiks in order to implement the prez's policies effectively.

Why does everyone think that Obama would be more like Bush II than like Nixon or TR or Mayor Daily for that matter?

Do you really think at this late date that Obama is going to let HRC push him around? Do you really?

All indications are exactly the opposite.

Now Dave, I know you worship Mencken and probably Chesterton too (if you don't, you should)but do try to remember that in the end they were sad, self-loathing latent homosexuals who (while often witty) added nothing to social commentary but complaint, histrionics and liver disease.

frank said...

Here's more on how Hillary's appointment violates a little-known clause in Article I Section 6:

"No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time."

The pay raise came through one of Bush's executive orders, for which there is no provision in the Constitution. Since the Office of Secretary of State received a pay increase while Hillary was in the Senate, she is ineligible to serve.

They'll probably just pay her the old rate and call it good, even though that doesn't pass constitutional muster in my book.

This might be a point of contention by Republicans during Congressional confirmation. But when did they start listening to the Constitution?