Delusion's Blog

Politicians seem to be able to say one thing and mean (or worse, do) another. This is not really a scientific trick, it is something all of us can do. Listen to this:

When you have hot soup, you blow on it to cool it off. When you have cold hands, you blow on them to warm them up.

I know, stunning to realize how simple it really is.

So the next time your favorite politician says one thing and does another, know this: they aren't doing anything magical.

Now you know their secret.

This is the year in which there was no chance the Republicans could even dream of being elected. This is the year in which the Democrats were supposed to have a lock on the presidential election. It was inevitable.

Sure it was.

After eight years of Mr. Bush, the popular thought is that the Democrats don't really have to try, that the American people are sick and tired of the Republicans and this year, this year things will be different. Change, as we have been told constantly, is coming.

So. Hillary was the first Inevitable. She was such a shoe-in she had no plan for anything after Super Tuesday. She, and her followers (and the general public) were shocked to realize the election was not hers, that there was still work to do. Of course, she worked hard and tried and tried and in the end, this Inevitable was left wanting. Her followers (of course) started to say Obama 'stole' the nomination, but that talk quieted when the media pretty much ignored them.

Mr. Obama is the second Inevitable. Campaigning on Change, he was going to change everything, from bipartisan rancor to the general attitude in Washington. There were (and still are) very little specifics, yet Mr. Obama can speak wonderfully and that should be enough. Why? This is the Democrat's year, remember, and there is absolutely no way a Republican can win the white house. It goes against everything everyone believes and also just doesn't seem . . . right. If the entire country is against Bush, as it seem and as we are told, it naturally follows the entire country should be for Mr. Obama.

And yet, they aren't. Why?

Mr. Obama, that Champion of Change, selects a senator who has been in the senate for thirty years. That is not change. He also seems lately to spend most of his time on the defensive, attacking his opponent, which is also not change. I used to listen to his speeches and I used to think he really was an Inevitable, yet lately he's been too bitter for my tastes. 

And so has another Inevitable, Mr. McCain. He is the Maverick, the One Who Reaches Across The Aisle, and yet he has said less about the economy than anyone. If he doesn't believe there is anything wrong with the economy, a view many share, he should say so. Yet he says nothing, instead running on just his national security credentials.  Another Republican tried that back in 1992, just after winning a war, and got handed his hat.

Rather than break his 'promise' of not furthering any rancor between parties, he has Ms. Palin do the attacking for him. That is good theatre, yet that is not change.

So. This election we truly will elect someone different, either Obama or McCain. Each, in his own way, is going to elicit change. Some of that change will be purposeful, most will be accidental since the president truly has very limited powers to do anything resembling real change without Congress. I fear regardless of which party wins the white house, the bitterness in Washington will continue and nothing will get done. There is, of course, something to be said about that. 

I only hope after everything that whomever is elected does what is in the best interest of this country and its citizens.

According to the Austin American Statesman, the following is what the Austin City Council worked on during their last meeting. The commentary is mine:

 Agreed to spend $488,052 to hold a runoff election for the Place 4 council seat on June 14.

Okay, this sounds very strange. Almost half a million to hold a run-off? Really?

Approved a $680,000 contract with Studio 8 Architects Inc. to design and build the North Austin Recreation Center.

Remember that number above, as this center will cost over a million.

Approved a $212,000 contract with the law firm Andrews & Kurth LLP to help acquire property for a new water treatment plant.

Again, remember the number above. This is to 'help acquire', not actually acquire. In other words, we are paying a law firm a quarter of a million dollars to look for land (not purchase).

Agreed to apply for $5 million in grants and loans from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to create a strategy for preserving affordable rental housing in Austin.

We are going to get a loan from a charity to create a strategy for preserving affordable (section 8?) rental housing in Austin? Is this for real?

Agreed to stop buying plastic water bottles for City Hall and create a plan for reducing plastic water bottle use at other city buildings.

Notice there is no money for creating this plan. There will be, though. It should be easy enough: Post a sign, or send emails to every city employee asking (not telling) them to go easy on the plastic.

Voted to study the possibility of moving the Austin Police Department headquarters from downtown.

There is no money for this move, and there is no reason for it either. APD has lots of room where it is, and the location is perfect. Does the City want the crimefighters' headquarters out at Westlake?

So. This is your tax dollars and your elected representatives at work. If you have never gone to a meeting, I recommend it since these are the people who directly affect our lives here in Austin.

So. We find Clinton still alive and gasping (as opposed to grasping) and hoping if she repeats her lies often enough, people will believe it. And, sadly, it's working. The MI and FL delegations will be seated probably, in some form, which means they will be rewarded for breaking the rules. Nice. And no, please do not buy into the 'disenfranchisement' of the voters in those states since that is a flawed argument. There is no constitutional right to vote in a primary, first of all, and the DNC has the right under its bylaws to regulate their own primaries as they see fit. They knew the rules, they changed the rules, they got punished, Clinton went along with the rules change (until she realized she wouldn't get what she was 'entitled' to) and . . . well, there it is. Simple.

I have heard and read it is Obama's fault, the Republican's fault, the fault of the media, etc. None of that is true, and yet to hear Hillary (and Bill) tell it, she is the victim here.

Please do not buy into the lies and false logic. She is an opportunistic hack who will take the entire party down with her before she acknowledges she is not the candidate Democrats want. How she has the delegates she does is stunning to me. I do not understand that one at all.

I was wrong in thinking she would have quit by now, very wrong, and I know my reasoning was flawed. I thought she would have seen the truth for what it is as opposed to what she wants it to be and realized enough is enough. I also thought her supporters, whomever they might be, would realize that truth as well.

People are tired of war. Tired of high gas prices. Tired of a sad economy. They want some kind of change, not the same old political games. Clinton, along with McCain for that matter, are the only two candidates still playing the 'politics as usual' card: McCain for his head in the sand approach to the economy, Clinton for the lies and  'I am the victim' approach.

I say, enough.

Hillary Clinton makes a statement about the assasination of Bobby Kennedy happening in June, and everyone gets into an uproar. She then offers an explanation, yet does not apologize. Well, unless an 'apology' starts with these words:

"I regret that if my words . . . "

Whenever you hear the word 'if' you are not getting an apology.

Her actual quote also included her statement that Bill Clinton didn't get the nomination until June 1992 (which is a lie: he had it in the bag in April) and Bobby Kennedy won the California primary late in June (technically true, although Bobby Kennedy had only entered the race at the end of April, so he wasn't in a similarly long, protracted race as the one now . . . meaning the comparison is apples and motorcycles).

So. Those who defend her say she is only talking about a 'timeline', meaning the contest is still going on until then, so she shouldn't quit. She certainly wasn't talking about Obama going the way of Bobby Kennedy. We should all move on, her defenders say.

She is so far out of this race there is really nothing she could say or do which would make me think she is a viable candidate. And yes, we as a country are ready for a woman president. Just not that woman.

The problem for many, though, is her use of the word 'assasination'. She could have simply said, "Bobby Kennedy won the California primary in June". Yet when someone as clever as Clinton says the word 'assasination', it is no accident.

This is no 'right-wing conspiracy' or some 'gender-bias' at work, this is Hillary Clinton at her finest.  And there are still those who not only believe what she says, but support her as well.

All I can say is this:

Why?

"Hillary Clinton Vows To Fight On!" the headlines scream. Yet she is a proven liar, so it's only a matter of when, not if, she quits. I am going out on a limb here by saying it will be within the next week, perhaps as early as this Friday (09 May).

Anyone else wanna play?

Hilary Clnton told a San Francisco audience in 2004 this:

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

Imagine if you will this candidate having the power (with the help of Congress, of course) to take thinks away from you. The implication is clear: take from you to give to someone else. Who? Someone more deserving? Who makes that judgement? Her?

Foget about what the interpretation is, even the above one. Just remember what the candidate actually says. Think and decide for yourself.

A man walks into the fruit department of a popular grocery store to buy some fruit. He doesn't need that much, just some bananas and oranges. He notices there are several people in the fruit section and all of them are either holding or squeezing fruit. This, these people believe, is a way to determine freshness.

The man walks over to the bananas and notices all of them are either mangled or brown. At best he can buy a couple and cut them up for banana nut bread. Yet banana nut bread is not what he wants. He moves to the oranges.

This section is completely torn up. People have been squeezing the oranges all day and there isn't one in the lot he would eat. He looks around and notices the clerk pricing some grapes. He walks over and asks the clerk if perhaps there are some more bananas or oranges in the back. The clerk replies no, there is only what is presented here in this department. The man nods, turns away, and decides to get some other kind of fruit. Any kind. And yet, all of the fruit is mangled. All of the fruit looks inedible and the man decides he would just have to do without on this trip. In the back of his mind he remembers this trip is similar to many of the trips he has taken to the grocery store lately.  

He walks to the checkout line and as he waits to check out he looks over at the customers in the fruit section. They are filling their baskets with the mangled and bruised fruit since they know they must have fruit and this fruit section is indicative of fruit sections at grocery stores throughout the land. It's not the fruit they wanted exactly, but it will have to do.

The man checks out and walks out of the store. On his way home he decides to grow his own fruit. And if he cannot grow his own fruit, he will have to either find a substitute or do without.