Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich? Really?
Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich? Really? Wow.
My mind was momentarily slammed this morning by this report: http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/fast-fix/fast-fix-liberals-abandon-obama-092451360.html
“Many within his own party are deriding President Obama for giving up too much in the final debt ceiling deal.
Emmanuel Cleaver, a Democrat from Missouri and the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, went as far as to call the deal a “sugar-coated Satan sandwich”.
But what are the real world political implications for Obama of unhappy liberals?
Not all that many. While liberals are peeved now, it’s a long way until the 2012 election. That gives Obama plenty of time to throw them a legislative bone or two to convince them that he’s still their guy.
And, when faced with the prospect of choosing between Obama and the Republican presidential nominee, it’s hard to imagine liberals voting for someone with whom they agree on almost nothing in order to send the president a message.
The biggest danger for Obama then is that some significant chunk of liberals decide to sit out the 2012 election, robbing him of the energetic support from the party base on which his 2008 victory was built.
Viewed broadly though, the anger on the left is full of sound and fury signifying not much.” END >>
OK, simple enough report, and rather cogent, for the Liberals and the Left really do have no where else to go. Which is true, also, of the Conservatives and the Right, they’ll have no where else to go either. And it’s the two fringes, of course, which are driving both parties further left into control-freakism and further right into control-freakism. Though they differ on the details of who shall be controlled and to what end, and of course, who shall have the levers of power in their tight little hands. Other than that, the fringes, the alleged “extremists” they are control-freaks, indeed. And the great middle who wishes some semblance of order and reason, is this sort of amorphous group of Americans, the clear majority, who really do want to help a neighbor in need, and get some assistance come the tornado, and perhaps be secure in their persons and lead the rather cushy lives we’ve all grown accustomed to – but with the clear recognition that the government can’t keep spending twice as much as it earns, and borrowing the difference. Yes, figure it out, by all means, but get to work on it already, and not come up with a plan to keep borrowing trillions of dollars in the vain hope that it will help anyone.
The problem is huge – it’s beyond comprehension sometimes – but only because no one can imagine what it would look like changed, or with whole pieces just gone. I mean, the Department of Commerce? What does it do? We are a commercial people, we don’t need a cabinet department for $80 billion a year or whatever – why, shut it down – and in 10 years you’ll save near $1 trillion dollars no? Wow! What a savings! Right away. With more good than harm come from getting rid of the swarm of busybodies come to eat out the substance of the people to help us with our commerce somehow. (I feel like Dave in the eponymous movie “Dave” when he goes through the budget with his friend over beers and cuts things left and right. It’s a good movie.)
Though, I’d dare say that when you call legislation, of any kind, almost – a “Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich” you are not quite rational. Almost. For, oh, I’d suppose if a law was made to round up all of a certain sort of people in the nation, outlawing their existence even, and subject them to grievous harm and brainwashing, like oh, say any Ex-gayness “reparative” therapies legislation which some seem to be calling for – well, yes, that could be called a Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich, indeed. But debt legislation?
Geez, a little far gone with the hyperbole and apocalypse eh Mr. Cleaver? What are you going to call really bad legislation?
More importantly, since you now sound oh so Anti-Obama, will you join the Tea Party against him? You certainly sound a bit messianic about the size and scope of the legislation that doesn’t really solve any debt and deficit problems, as you apparently see. For shaving $2 trillion off of wished for but hasn’t happened yet $15 trillion in spending – and thus wishing to spend only $13 trillion of money you don’t have – and are less and less likely to be able to borrow or tax out of anyone pretty soon, anyway – is indeed a bit disconcerting.
Very tea party of you to note the preposterous deal, which for the sake of the markets which aren’t buying it, and the economy which won’t be helped by it, and the unemployed whom won’t find jobs with it, and the bondholders who aren’t any more secure that their money will be good in the next few years by it, anyway, is just a sweet crutch for everyone to grasp in the hope that the crutch floating in the sea of debt will be big enough for all of us to hold on to instead of sinking into the abyss of economic ruin. But still the debt man cometh. Why, yes, Mr. Cleaver, very astute of you.
But perhaps save the apocalypse language for the apocalypse, and the Satan stuff for Satanic behavior, like oh, Norwegians gone mad. Or Rick Santorum, Maggie Gallagher, Bryan Fischer, Brian Brown and others of the NO GAYS! Movement. Now those people are Sugar-coated Satan Sandwich purveyors, for sure. But yes, Mr. Cleaver, the debt deal is not quite to my liking either. We’ll agree on at least that.
- Posted in: Uncategorized