Archive for the ‘Mad Mike’ Category

Mad Mike’s election summary…

November 11, 2006

Michael Z. Williamson speaks his mind on the recent election results.
Some highlights:

“Pelosi has said she will not try to end U.S. funding of the Iraq war but will pressure Bush to shift course, begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops and require Iraqis to take greater responsibility for their own nation.”

So 1: she’s admitting that they really don’t have any power to do anything. B) That attempting to do anything will cause troops to die and Dems to be hanged from lampposts, politically speaking. iii. That this was strictly about a power grab and they never had ANY intention of actually doing anything for the country. d] This is kinda what we’ve BEEN doing the last five years. They’re just hoping to cash in on the payoff now that the dirty work is done. See my Footnotes A and 2 below.

Other policies? We have the best economy in five years, after recovering from Bill Clinton’s net bubble collapse and his criminal outsourcing of jobs, not to mention his failed eco policies that in part caused the gas crunch. Oh, and Enron? That was under Clinton, too. The Republicans haven’t done a great job of fixing things, but they’ve managed to do some damage control. So the Dems want in to claim credit at the end again (See Footnote 2).

The problem is, even if they GET Bush to go along with their dope-smoking commie policies (here’s a hint: go to school and STUDY, like Ms Rice. Bra burnings, draft card burnings and pot parties don’t actually teach you anything except that public masturbation is a clever way of getting attention. See Footnote c.) that just means that the next economic disaster will occur sometime around 2009. Who’ll be president then? They’re hoping for Hitlery and Obama. Good luck. Unless they’ve already given up on 08. See Footnote IV] PS: a bare squeak in the House, a contested Senate and a few statehouses is not a “mandate” or a “punishment of Bush.” It means that as much as you claim things are screwed up, most people weren’t actually in agreement. They’re giving you an opportunity to prove otherwise, but as we all know you’re incapable of doing so, enjoy it while it lasts.

Advertisements

An essay on "voting irregularities"

February 5, 2006

Michael Z. Williamson has a few words on voting and who’s mucking with the numbers.

Now, 13 years of working the polls in IL and IN has taught me that if there is cheating, it is a Dem doing it, and there will almost always be cheating. Your mileage may vary, but I speak from experience.

To hear them claim that CHICAGO and YOUNGSTOWN had Republican cheats is just so boggling I can’t respond. The Dems have stolen every election in Chicago since the 1930s. That they would probably win honestly doesn’t stop them.

Look, Bush won a very narrow victory in 2000 (Oh, yes he did, you paranoid loons) against an entrenched incumbent veep during a still mostly good economy that hadn’t yet quite reached the crash point.

Conventional wisdom said he should have catered to the “middle” to pick up more votes.

Bush stuck to his guns, and picked up more people who agreed with him, some who didn’t but thought him the lesser evil, some who didn’t but respected him for taking a stand. Right or wrong, he acted like an EXECUTIVE, which is what the job IS, and what’s been lacking for three previous terms.

From a POLITICAL VIEWPOINT ONLY, it was brave and genius and it swung a lot of people.

Summary:

So, whether you agree with them and him or not, most people voted, and voted for Bush, because he had a POSITION, and a MORALITY, and a PLATFORM of what he intends to do. REPEAT: WHETHER YOU AGREE WITH SAID POSITION OR NOT, OR THINK THEY MISSED A LOT OF WHAT WENT ON BEHIND THE SCENES, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED.

And it’s a good thing.

It means if the Dems run HONEST candidates within those criteria (hey, first time for anything, right?), they are very likely to start winning elections.

It would help to stop being worse fascists than the big gov’t Republicans they hate, too. But one step at a time…

That’s just some of the highlights. Go read the whole thing and get off the the SoreLoserman bandwagon. It’s not pretty, it’s not honest and it’s not winning votes.

Oh ya, and how many of you picked up that Mr. Williamson is not a big fan of President Bush (41)?