Wednesday, October 31, 2012

George McGovern, R.I.P.

U.S. Senator George McGovern, prominent Democrat from
South Dakota, the Democrat's presidential nominee in 1972,
and the political figure many cite as the man who reshaped
his party and was the champion of modern liberalism, passed
away after being in frail health for some time. He was 90
years of age.

Known for promoting the Food For Peace program in the 1960s,
as well as his steadfast opposition to the Vietnam War, the
senator was to the liberal wing of the Democrats' party what
Sen. Barry Goldwater was to the conservative wing of the
Republican Party. Both men, while failing to win the presi-
dency, instead influenced their respective parties into moving
further leftward and rightward in both policy making and
governance. They were in effect lightening rods for their
strong brands of politics in a time when most of their
colleagues were clinging to the political middle ground.

Your politically active Peasant never met the senator,
but was aware that he had formed and maintained collegial
relations with Republican senators, even stoutly conservative
senators with whom he rarely agreed with in regards to the
issues of the day. McGovern even had a long and warm friend-
ship with William F. Buckley, the de facto spiritual leader of
conservatism in the United States and founder of National
Review magazine, a leading periodical to this day of conser-
vative thought. Sen. McGovern could strongly disagree with
someone -- a fellow senator, a constituent, a pundit --- but
still be on friendly terms with that person; he did not and
would not look down his nose at anyone with whom he held
differing political opinions. This is a rare thing in today's
political climate, where politics in America has all but
become a blood sport. Another rarity: McGovern could
change his mind on a political topic and be quite open about
sharing his new opinion and the reasons for doing so.
Staunchly liberal he was; stubbornly ideological he was

Although your staunchly conservative Peasant found little
political common ground with the South Dakota senator, I
have nothing but great respect and regard for the man. May
he enjoy eternal comfort in heaven.


Tuesday, October 30, 2012

A Dash Through the News

Like I said in my previous post, there's a lot of items to go over
and only a little time to do it in, so let's get started.

ABC News recently changed its polling criteria re: the presidential
election which is now upon us. What they did was change their
polling percentages by increasing minority participation by 20%,
thus giving President Obama's approval numbers a bump upwards.
The fishy thing about all this is that most polling organizations
change their criteria in off years, or at least in the summer months 
in election years. ABC, however, made their switch just five weeks
before this most crucial election in many years, maybe ever.
Coincidence? Your skeptical Peasant thinks not. After all, several
polls have been seen to have oversampled Democrat voters,
and I would venture not accidentally. ABC has, like the other
networks in the lamesteam media has long been "in the tank"
for Obama in their reporting on this president; it would not be
a stretch for them to play cute with their polling concerning the
presidential race.

The Weekly Standard reported on union bullying of their rank-
and-file members in the Senate race in Massachusetts between
incumbent Scott Brown (R) and Elizabeth Warren (D). Interviews
with union members who had attended a recent debate between
the candidates revealed that they were threatened with $150 fines
if they refused to come to the debate. In 2021, when Brown ran for
this very seat upon the passing of Sen. Ted Kennedy, union mem-
bers said that their unions paid them $50 each to wear shirts sup-
orting Brown's opponent. A fine example of the best grassroots 
support that money can buy!

Although your favorite Peasant is not a fan of Ann Coulter, I do
commend her for her witty and astute observation re: the New 
York Times editorial page. Coulter remarked, "The New York 
Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three
answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher 
taxes, restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control."
Your amused Peasant would add that the Times editorial board
is like a broken record in that they repeat these tired, stale 
nostrums so often.

Badger state left-wingers are trying every way they can think of
to overturn Act 10, Gov. Scott Walker's legislative initiative to rein
in compensation costs regarding state employees. What galls  
them is the fact that they are having to pay their fair share of their
retirement and health coverage costs, and because the new law is
working, it is very popular with the taxpayers of Wisconsin --- 
thus the lefties taking their fight to the courts. According to the
latest actuarial studies, it has been discovered that by 2019
Milwaukee Public Schools non-pension benefit liabilities
will have been reduced from $4.9 billion to $1.8 billion (!). Credit
Act 10 for this remarkable turnaround. The public union bosses 
and their their pals have been shopping around for a judge who
will issue a stay on Act 10 to "review" the law. What they are
really attempting here is to find (or make)
an excuse to declare Act 10 unconstitutional according to the
state constitution so that they can throw it out and reinstate the
old system of funding pensions and health insurance for state
workers. And sadly, they found such a judge, right there in
Madison (that figures!). But the Walker administration is
challenging this gambit quite vigorously. Stay tuned as this
story unfolds.

More political news and commentary to come!


Monday, October 29, 2012

A Lot To Cover in a Short Amount of Time

Friends, your swamped Peasant is going to do something
unprecedented; I shall be posting several times this week,
over the weekend, and on the day before the election (Nov.
6). I am doing this because I have some stories that I wish
to share with you along with my thoughts on them, and I
want to share my thoughts on the election itself here at the
eleventh hour, as it were.

Now I normally post once a week, twice if I come across
something so big, so juicy that it can't wait until the following
week to post for you. But this is a hurried. harried time that
we now find ourselves in, and time is truly of the essence.

I shall post stories breaking here in my home state, Wisconsin,
as well as national stories accompanied by my observations
and thoughts on same. Some of the pieces will be rather brief,
others longer, all being vital to get out. And you will get to see,
read, and share them with your family, your friends, your
neighbors, your co-workers, your fellow church attendees,
your poker pals, your drinking buddies, your hunting/fishing
mates, anyone and everyone who is concerned about the
direction our country is going in and the consequences of the
election coming at us in a mere eight days from today. This is
ammo that you will need to have in order to make the best
choices in the ballot booths on that important day!

We shall finish our election season here at PWAP with a
bang! There shall be some bang-up stories and information
which will further inform and galvanize you for the big day.
The first of these posts will appear here tomorrow.

See you then!


Thursday, October 25, 2012

Thoughts on Obama-Romney Debate III

The final debate between the presidential candidates
showed a weaker contrast between President Obama
and Governor Mitt Romney, but not without some
distinguishing points to provide discernable difference.
To Obama's credit, he showed some more marked
improvement on his debating prowess against his
Republican foe. He seemed more steady and
willing to challenge Romney on some key issues
regarding foreign policy and defense matters, which
were the topics that this last debate focused on.
Romney, for his part, pulled his punches; he didn't
go after the president in the hell-bent-for-leather
way that he did in the first debate, nor was he as
stinging in his rebuttals as he was in the second .
Romney didn't highlight the stark differences
between Obama and himself on Afghanistan,
Pakistan, China, or the use of drones. And his
difference with his opponent on Iran was but a
matter of degree. Romney stated that he would have
advocated tougher sanctions sooner, and reiterated
his pledge to prevent Iran from building a nuclear
bomb, which the Iranians would then use to threaten
Israel, our biggest ally in that region. When Obama
was queried as to the possibility of an Iranian
attack drawing a U.S. strike, Obama said that he
would "stand with Israel" --- gosh, this would
astound Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,
who has been frustrated in his efforts to get President
Obama to give him even the time of day, let alone
any promise of support. Obama seemed to have time
for so many other people; George Clooney and his
Hollywood pals at fundraisers, the ladies (your
sarcastic Peasant using this term here quite loosely)
on The View, and who knows who else, while
giving Netanyahu short shrift. Now this was a
fantastic opportunity for Romney to go after Obama
on Israel, but instead weakly concurred with him,
saying that he would also stand with Israel "not
just diplomatically" but "militarily". A missed

The question of the United States' global role gave
a little more contrast between the two men ---
emphasis on "a little". Obama jabbed Romney by
saying "I know you haven't been in a position to
execute foreign policy", belittling Romney and his
criticisms of the president's handling of foreign
policy. Obama went on to warn that arming Syrian
rebels was risking putting weapons into hands which
shouldn't have them in the first place, while Romney
punched back by saying that the crisis in Syria was an
opportunity to undermine Iran's strongest ally in the
region, a regime with as much animosity to Israel
as that in Iran, but did not advocate U.S. military
involvement in Syria. Romney could have upbraided
Obama on his view of our country's global role and
his actions taken in accordance with same, saying
that it would be too risky to give him another four
years of "on the job training". Another missed

Both candidates stated that the U.S. military forces
currently in Afghanistan would leave that country in
2014. Romney gave Obama a back-handed compliment
in congratulating him on successfully attacking and killing
Osama bin Laden and other terrorists, then adding "We
can't kill our way out of this." Romney's alternative
course of action was greater emphasis on education,
gender equality and other initiatives to urge the Muslim
world to eschew extremism of its own accord.

Even the discussion of the killings of four Americans in
Benghazi, Libya, one of whom was our ambassador to
that country, didn't reveal anything new from the pair,
as neither man went beyond tired, oft-repeated talking
points. Yet another blown opportunity for Romney!

In the final analysis, your observant Peasant gives the
debate series to challenger Mitt Romney by scoring
it the first two for Romney and the third and final
debate a draw. Romney missed a great opportunity to
blow away Obama on the issues in which the latter is
almost as weak as he is on the economy. But Romney
has been able to move the needle in terms of the polls
just two weeks out from the election with the perform-
ance he gave in the three presidential debates. Anyway,
as a whole the polls are understating the true amount
of support that Governor Romney has, and the resultant
large advantage over President Obama in terms of
support among likely voters. This series of debates
simply put the icing on the cake for the former
Massachusetts governor, as Romney pads his amount
of support. Barring any missteps, Romney and
those of us supporting him shall have a grand feast.
We can't stomach another four years of Obama's
unappetizing dish of "hope and change"; we're
ready for a brand new chef, and a brand new entree'.


Thursday, October 18, 2012

Thoughts on Obama-Romney Debate II

Well, my fantastic readers, the second presidential candidates'
debate showed a more prepared, sharper, feistier, and aggres-
sive President Obama than the one we saw in the first debate.
And he benefited from the help of the moderator Candy
Crowley, who interrupted Mitt Romney twenty-nine times in
the gabfest hosted by Hofstra University in Long Island, New
York. Basically, Crowley did for Obama what Martha Raddatz
did for Vice President Joe Biden in the Vice Presidential can-
didates' debate a few days earlier; step in to save the Dem
candidate's bacon when he was about to get fried by the GOP
candidate on an issue in which the latter had the better command
of the facts. But it still was not enough for Obama to gain a

In the minds of the many who were in attendance as well as those
who viewed the event on TV, the second debate was a either
a draw or a razor-thin victory for Gov. Romney. Those thinking
the latter result indicated that Romney scored big on the topics
of the Economy, Jobs, and the Deficit, therefore earning the nod.
And many of these folks were turned off by moderator Crowley's
apparent bias. Crowley, it must be pointed out, and Raddatz too,
are both CNN talking heads, and as such they talk with a left-wing
accent when they talk about the political news stories of the day,
so this is all that we can expect from these magpies. Anything to
patch up President Obama's waning re-election chances is the
liberal establishment media's mission.

Also, there was the topic of Libya, in which Romney charged that
Obama had taken 14 days to call the assault on the U.S. Consulate
in that country in which our ambassador and four staffers were
horribly murdered a terrorist act. Although Romney was inaccurate
on this count (Obama had in fact referred to the assault as an act
of terrorism on September 12, the very day following the attack),
some in Obama's administration stated for several days running
their belief that there were merely protests over an American-
made video ridiculing Islam. Finally, after over a month admin-
istration officials admitted that there were no such protests.
Romney was quite correct in arguing that the administration had
yet to explain why it took so long for the correction to be made
regarding the incident or why it had believed that the attack was
thought to have sprung from a demonstration. While both candi-
dates were erroneous in some of their statements, Obama came
away looking the worse.

On the matter of war, Obama advocated taking the money being
spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and shifting it to tending
to our country's infrastructure and our schools. Very noble idea.
However, the president neglected to mention that all of the money
spent on the two wars was borrowed. Our government, in fact,
borrows 40 cents per each dollar it spends! Therefore, using
that money being spent on wars to build and maintain schools,
roads, and bridges would necessitate even more borrowing
(as our national coffers are empty), adding to both the federal
deficit and debt.

Regarding energy, Romney stated that U.S. oil production is down
14% this year on federal land, with gas production down 9%
for the same period, because the president had cut in half the
number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands and
public waters. Obama came back with stating that his administra-
tion had in fact opened up public lands and even had more drilling
on these lands than the previous administration, one headed
by an oilman (George W. Bush). Both statements have the element
of truth, as far as they go, but according to an Energy Department
study published in the spring of this year, sales of oil from federal
lands and waters fell 14% between 2010 and 2011 while the sales
of natural gas fell 9%, giving credence to Romney's point. According
to the same report, however, oil production has increased 13% since
Obama took office despite last year's drop, and oil analysts believe
that oil production in the Gulf of Mexico will rise. Natural gas
production from federal grounds has been in decline for several
years due to drillers finding huge reserves of the gas in formations
under several states that are cheaper to access than most federal

Concerning jobs, Obama stated that he wants to build on the
5 million jobs that he claims his administration had created over the
past 30 months in just the private sector. Obama had in fact cherry-
picked numbers to bolster his empty boast, and this is not the first
time he has done this. He ignores the fact that public-sector job
losses have pulled down overall job creation, and Obama mentions
only the past 30 months, thus ignoring job losses during his term
up to that point. According to Labor Department figures, approx-
imately 4.5 million jobs were created over the 30-month time frame.
However, those same figures also state that approximately 4.3
million jobs disappeared in the earlier months of Obama's time
in office. Obama therefore appears to be, only marginally, a job
creator. (Note: Your skeptical Peasant believed that these figures
are too optimistic, and that there has been a net job loss for the
whole time Obama has been president).

Romney hammered Obama on the rise in gas prices, shooting up
from $1.86/gallon upon Obama taking office to $4/gallon at the
present time. He stated that this is proof that Obama's oil and
energy strategy has failed.

And Romney let the president have it over taxes, stating that he
would cut taxes for most Americans and pay for the cuts with
reducing or eliminating tax deductions, exemptions, and credits,
therefore not having to add to the deficit or shift the tax burden
from the wealthy to the middle class. Romney told the audience
that he would bring tax rates across the board down, but would
limit deductions and exemptions and credits, especially for
the highest income earners. He would also get end the estate tax
and the alternative minimum tax. Romney also fired this salvo:
"A recent study has shown that people in the middle class will
see $4,000 a year in higher taxes as a result of the spending and
borrowing of this (Obama's) administration."

In the end, both candidates were assertive and at times aggressive,
Obama with Romney and Romney with both Obama and Crowley.
Both candidates, despite this, still could have called out each other
on several more points on the issues than they in fact did.
Both candidates made good points, but both made some points that
were not substantiated by facts. This debate, though, showed more
fireworks than the first, with the stiff verbal jabs and sweeping
roundhouses for driving points and criticisms home. And, like the
Vice Presidential candidates' debate, the Republican was at a
two-to-one disadvantage but still overcame everything to emerge
victorious, although by a much narrower margin this time around.

The third and final presidential debate will be held on Monday,
October 22. Your faithful Peasant shall once again tune in for the
proceedings. I hope you, my wonderful readers, will join me.


Saturday, October 13, 2012

Thoughts on the Biden-Ryan Debate

Your eager Peasant just couldn't wait to share commentary
on the Vice Presidential candidates' debate which took
place just the day before yesterday. What a study in
contrasts! We had a candidate who was polished, polite
and professional in demeanor and presentation face off
against a candidate who behaved like an arrogant,
condescending ass and an absolute buffoon. Your bemused
but studious Peasant gives his nod to Republican Vice-
Presidential candidate Paul Ryan for his having command
of the facts regarding the issues discussed, as well as
not getting ruffled by and rising to the bait of Vice
President Joe Biden, who showed incredible belligerence
and contempt toward his opponent. But then, Biden,
like the Obama administration as a whole, has little
time and even less use for anyone who disagrees with
and actively opposes their stands on the issues facing
our country, be they Republican politicians or We the

Now, the current veep didn't behave so boorishly toward
GOP Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin four years
earlier in their debate; in fact, to his credit, Biden was
quite the gentleman. He made sure not to give any hint of
treating the first female Republican Vice Presidential
nominee as a less than worthy opponent. So why did
Joe act like a schmo toward the first GOP nominee in
fifty years that even the most partisan members of the
VP's own party acknowledge as a serious, intelligent,
and formidable person?

During the very smooth, very polished performance by
U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, the incumbent Vice President
showed a disconnect between his derisive laughter
at, along with his many interruptions of, his foe and
what Ryan actually said. And Biden was not stopped,
nor even warned by the moderator who looked so
much like she was trying to help Biden get an undue
and unfair advantage; she cut off Ryan herself,
depriving the GOP candidate of the opportunity to
respond to Biden's wild criticisms of Ryan's points,
at one point even switching the topic as if to spare
Ol' Joe from a possible skewering by Ryan. As the
debate progressed, it looked more and more like
Rep. Ryan was facing not one but two opponents
working as a veritable tag team. But if all this was
a stratagem it failed miserably, as the Wisconsin
congressman was not the least bit fazed nor rattled
by either Biden's antics nor the moderator's actions.

The debate was quite uncomfortable to watch for
many people, both those supporting the GOP ticket
and those backing the incumbent team. An acquain-
tance who is planning to vote for the Obama-Biden
duo watched the proceedings and told me that she
was yelling at her TV "Joe, quit the crazy laughter!
Quit cutting Ryan off!". Indeed, Biden looked so
immature, even adolescent next to his 27-years-
younger opponent.

In post-debate interviews with audience members,
one of the women there remarked that the Vice
President reminded her of her abusive ex-spouse
with the way that he railed against Rep. Ryan.
Another woman concurred, stating that just prior
to the event, she had left an abusive relationship
and that Biden gave her "the creeps" in the same
way that her ex-boyfriend's snickering, derisive
laughter, and constantly talking over her always
made her feel inferior. Now, these ladies viewed
the debate from a conservative perspective and
would not have voted for Obama and Biden
regardless. But Biden's antics likely put off
many other female voters who otherwise would
have voted for the Dem ticket, and for the same
reasons. So much for the Dems' hoping to
capture enough of the women's vote to squeak
by to a victory on November 6.

Joe Biden certainly performed as many, including
your favorite Peasant, expected. And on the heels
of President Obama's butt-kicking by Mitt Romney
it is apparent that the pair at the top of the Demo-
crats' ticket is doing an exceedingly poor job of
selling the electorate on the notion of granting them
another term. There are two debates remaining for
the presidential candidates, but barring an absolute
miracle Obama and Biden will find their shared fate
sealed with their dismissal from their bosses, We
the People. Your buoyant Peasant is looking forward
to delivering these elitist pigs their pink slips!


Thursday, October 11, 2012

Thoughts on Obama-Romney Debate I

President Barack Obama and presidential challenger
Mitt Romney had the first of three scheduled debates
last week, discussing the issues of the economy, taxes
and health care. The debate looked in some ways like
one of the many boxing matches that George Foreman,
a legendary ex-champion known for his incredible
punching power which made it possible to end most
of his bouts quickly, had back in the day. The former
governor of Massachusetts gave a Foremanesque
performance in rocking the incumbent president
by verbally knocking him all about the place. It was,
in the minds of many seasoned political debate
observers, the strongest debate performance given
by Gov. Romney in this campaign season to date.
Your astonished but grateful Peasant caught the
debate on the radio and was both surprised and
delighted in the way that Romney took the fight to
Obama, staying on offense and never letting up on
him. A man known for giving tepid performances in
debates throughout his political career (Romney
blew a debate with the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy
when he challenged Kennedy for the senate seat from
the Bay State which the latter held for many years; it
was a debate which many thought Romney should
have won with ease, as Kennedy's communication
skills by then had noticeably faded. That poor
showing was pivotal in Romney losing the election to
the scion of Camelot), the GOP challenger performed
as a man on fire. It was a treat to see for those of us
who want so badly to send Obama packing!

Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and CNN
contributor, said that Romney "rose to the moment"
and seemed to have been made sharp by the 22
primary debates he had been in on the way to the
Republican nomination. James Carville, Democrat
strategist and a CNN contributor himself, stated
"It looked like Romney wanted to be there and
President Obama didn't want to be there," adding
"The president didn't bring his 'A' game." That's
stating it politely. Obama at times during the veritable
massacre sounded peeved, annoyed, and frustrated,
even criticizing moderator Jim Lehrer for allegedly
not giving Obama enough time to get his points across
at one juncture. The prez that the young, hip contingent
among his flock of supporters hold to be the epitome
of "cool", of being the "coolest" president that our
country has ever had, nearly had a meltdown when
Mitt Romney brought the heat. The president need
not have worried as to his allotted time to speak;
moderator Lehrer failed to keep the pair within
time limits for responses, with Obama getting the
best of the deal --- he ended up speaking for four
minutes longer than Romney all totalled.

Romney's best moments came in stating that the
nation's high unemployment rate and lagging economic
recovery proved that the president's policies have
failed. At another point, Romney noted how $90
billion spent om programs to develop alternative
energy sources could have been devoted to hiring
teachers, which would have been helpful in reducing
unemployment. Obama, for his part, argued that his
policies were helping to bring the country back from
the financial and economic crisis he inherited (his
fallback position: when poor economic figures are
brought up, just blame "Dubya"!). Obama also
trotted out his stale class warfare phraseology,
claiming that Romney was interested only in cutting
the taxes of the rich and that this would not help
the country to economically recover. Romney
deftly countered with stating that his tax plan would
not add to the deficit, and he socked Obama for
his proposal to allow tax rates on income over
$250,000 for families and over $200,000 for
individuals to rise back up to the higher rates of
the 1990s.

Obama's best salvo was when he said that Romney
lacked the important leadership quality to be able to
say "no" when necessary; this is rich, coming from
a president who never uttered that word when asked
for political and economic goodies by his major cash
donors, items which the rest of us would never have
gotten and which few, if any of us would have dared
ask for. You may recall Solyndra, for one example.
Romney hammered Obama on the health care reform
bill, saying "I just don't know how the president could
have come into office, facing 23 million people out of
work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the
... kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion
for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting
for jobs for the American people," and when you
consider that most of the American people have been
strongly opposed to the plan from the start, it shows
Obama in a very negative light; a leader focused only
on what he wants rather than what the people want,
ignoring their repeated objections to his attempts to
pass and implement a program which they want no
part of. In many places in this world, such a leader
is called a "dictator" (these additional remarks from
your favorite Peasant).

There are two more debates scheduled for the candidates
for the presidency. The vice presidential candidates are
set to have at each other tonight at 8:00 PM EST. Obama
was supposed to be the strong half of the Democrats' ticket.
But after Obama's exceedingly poor performance in his first
debate, the Dems now are in the unenviable position of
having to rely on Vice President (and Gaffe Master General)
Joe Biden to make up for the president's tough night in his
own debate with Romney's running mate U.S. Rep. Paul
Ryan. And the prez will have to, in any event, improve on
his debating acumen and bone up on the social and defense
issues, which will be the subjects on tap for the remaining
two debates he'll have with Gov. Romney. The Dems'
ticket is in a deep hole which it may not be able to dig its
way out of. And this will bode ill for them, but will bode
well for those of us who want to have real hope and
change, as we hope to elect a team which will change
our method of governance back to one grounded in our
constitution. Your optimistic Peasant is certain that we
shall be successful!


Wednesday, October 3, 2012

In Case Anyone STILL Needs A Reason to Vote Against Obama

Your always-researching Peasant found a great article
in the September 10 issue of National Review which
gives some humor-coated reasons for denying
President Barack Obama a second term in the White
House. Titled "689 Reasons to Defeat Barack Obama",
NR gives some serious points as to why Obama is
not deserving of another four years as President in
the magazine's signature piercingly humorous style.

You can also find this delightful article at National
Review Online. The link:
In the meantime, here are some choice excerpts from
the piece for your enjoyment. The featured reasons
for voting out Obama are numbered as given by NR.

1) Because he was not the one we were waiting for.
(Peasant's comment: NR lead off with what I felt
was their best --- and wittiest reason --- to vote
against him!)

4) Because lots of people fail at their first real job.

5) Because "Winning the Future" was not a very
good slogan back in 2005 when it was Newt's.

9) Joe Biden.

11) Because he didn't quite get the message in 2010.

12) For claiming that he would cut the deficit in half.

13) And then adding more than $5 trillion in new debt.

14) To remind him that debt used to be, IN HIS OWN
WORDS (emphasis mine), "unpatriotic".

16) For blaming President Bush.

22) Because he listened to the Reverend Wright's
crackpot racist diatribes for years and then gave us
a lecture on racism.

24) Because of an $800 billion stimulus bill.

25) "Shovel-ready" projects.

26) The non-existence of shovel-ready projects.

27) For joking about the non-existence of shovel-
ready projects.

28) Because "jobs created or saved" is Enron

37) "The private sector is doing fine."

54) Revising his tune on the economy in December 2011,
he said: "It's going to take more than two years. It's
going to take more than one term. It probably takes
more than one president." We agree with that last part.

76) Because he values Joe Biden's advice.

91) Because he didn't let a crisis go to waste.

110) MSNBC could use the ratings help.

113) For Obamacare.

115) For passing it to see what's in it.

125) It's racist to say "Obamacare".

126) Except when he says it.

208) Dodd.

209) Frank.

210) Dodd-Frank.

230) Arguing that Bain Capital is the problem
with America.

231) While taking Bain Capital's campaign

285) Joe Biden.

296) Joe Biden.

320) "Big f***ing deal."

325) Biden was asked by the manager of a
custard shop outside of Milwaukee if he was
going to lower taxes. He called the man a

331) "The war on women".

497) "Cash for Clunkers".

500) Gas prices up 100 percent since Inauguration

586) The czars.

587) The fundraisers.

593) Telling the SEIU: "We look after each other!"
True enough.

596) Janeane Garofalo is adorable when she weeps.

602) Have we mentioned Joe Biden?

689) Because you built that.

See the rest of the 689 reasons in NR in print or
online! Enjoy!

NOTE: Your perpetually-in-motion Peasant
is posting this piece a day before Thursday of this
week, as I am facing a rather uncertain day tomor-
row in terms of my schedule, and am not sure if I
shall have time to be online then. And, this item I
am sharing is much too good to hold for another
couple of days, let alone longer! I wanted SO much
to share this with you, my fantastic readers, at
the earliest opportunity. Thanks all!