Did Nancy get hold of the bong?




After dropping by to see the twins on my way home tonight and getting a late start on dinner, I didn't tune in to Obama's speech until way into it. And watching, all I could think for a moment was, "What's with that weird stoner smirk on Nancy Pelosi's face?" Did she get ahold of Phelps' bong? I pointed it out to my wife, who said maybe she had a little drink first.

Joe Biden, on the contrary, looks pretty normal. Or as normal as he can look when not talking, which of course is NOT normal for him.

I guess I need to catch up on what has been actually said here… I hope it was good.

Just now, the president promised a cure for cancer…. That certainly got my attention…

17 thoughts on “Did Nancy get hold of the bong?”

  2. Greg Flowers

    Joe Biden’s dominant expression is a fixed smile of manic glee. One of my life rules is that people who grin incessantly should be viewed with caution for they are either stupid of have something up their sleeve. I’m not certain which camp Biden falls into but since I first encountered him on the national media he has struck me as fairly reeking of insincerity. My theory was that Obama selected him as running mate on the theory that it would protect him (Obama) against assassination. (President Biden???) The man’s politics bother me not nearly as much as him shallow opportunism and willingness to play fast and loose with the truth.
    About a year ago The Economist had a leader stating that in the near future certain types of cancer could be controlled (not cured, as I recall) to the extent that they would become chronic non-fatal diseases. My (very rudimentary) understanding of cancer is that it comes in so many forms that a blanket cure is unlikely.

  3. Greg Flowers

    Just heard Bobby Jindal’s speech. Wow! Principaled, photogenic, charismatic, whip smart with an impressive resume. I have followed him for some time and he seems to be the real deal. He and Sanford will be going for the supporters and I would have to give Jindal a decided edge. A first generation South Asian elected Governor of Louisiana, quite an accomplishment. He may have Romney’s problem (though Romney had other problems as well) in that he belongs to a religion (in Jindal’s case Roman Catholicism) which many of the evangelical supporters he would need to attract find to be anathema.

  4. Weldon VII

    After 45 minutes of Obama campaigning for his blueprint for the new American order, I turned to my wife and said, “Do you reckon Pelosi’s high?”
    Great minds think alike, Brad. I kept waiting for her to get caught up in the giggles.
    After Obama promised a cure for cancer, I spoke to the TV screen: “How ’bout the common cold while you’re at it?”
    The man is a great speaker, but he cannot begin to pay for nationalizing education through college and nationalizing health care while cutting the deficit in half.
    The campaign, apparently, will never end.

  7. Phillip

    Smirk or no smirk, at least it’s refreshing to see a Presidential address to Congress without Darth Vader lurking in the background.

  8. bud

    I think Greg Flowers must have gotten hold of Phelp’s Bong. You are kidding aren’t you Greg? Jindal’s speech was bizarre. Words just cannot describe how weird and disfunctional the Katrina reference was. I’m afraid the GOP is going to sink to depths not seen in American politics since the Civil War if they keep this idiocy up much longer. The Limbaugh wing of the GOP has taken over and it ain’t pretty.

  9. Greg Flowers

    Equating Limbaugh and Jindal is just a thoughtless sound bite. Jindal is a very smart guy who thinks deeply on issues and has a number of impressive accomplishments to his credit. Limbaugh is an entertainer who has made a fortune playing to the lowest common denominator. At this point Jindal represents many of the things I believe in and I am looking forward to following his future. I respect your right to your opinions whether they are drug induced or not (mine are not).

  10. Lee Muller

    Nancy Pelosi knows Obama is not going to stand up to her spending spree. She already has 9,000 earmarks in a budget that will be financed by borrowing and printing money.
    Obama will talk tough, say he is “acting responsibly” and “demanding accountability”, then fly off on another phony “Town Hall” tour while Pelosi and Reid pass major policy changes without hearings, debate, or Obama.

  11. Phillip

    I’m going to split the difference between Bud and Greg on Jindal’s response, transcript of which I just re-read.
    Bud, I do have to say that Jindal’s speech struck several subtle but distinctive tones that sets it apart from the terrible self-destructive trend the GOP has followed for a number of years now. Primarily it refocused the party’s message on its historically grounded core, less government, tighter reins on spending, etc. He touted the need for health care reform, and in his points on energy policy, the first two items he mentioned were conservation (egads! this from the party that stills mocks Carter for this) and alternative/renewable fuels. Only at the end did he mention domestic drilling.
    Also, no culture war symbology. A small bit about keeping our military strong but otherwise very light for the GOPer on the jingoistic militaristic rhetoric of recent years. So I wouldn’t exactly call Jindal part of the “Limbaugh wing” of the party.
    However, Greg, Bud is right in that Jindal’s Katrina references were really bizarre. Yeah, of course you can find some examples of overweaning bureaucracy which can sometimes get in the way of a fast solution which I guess was the “point” he was trying to make, but the problem of Katrina was not too MUCH government response, it was NOT ENOUGH government response, thanks to an executive branch that believed in “less government.” He had best leave the Katrina references out if he ever seeks higher office. Really ill-advised, just way too easy to puncture his argument.
    Jindal’s (and the GOP’s) error is in the narrow way they define “empowering” Americans; when your house and all your possessions have been obliterated and your life is in danger via hurricane for example, government “getting out of the way” is not exactly going to “empower” you. And the whole idea that in a democracy, government is the “other,” something apart from the people and the popular will, is profoundly misguided. Jindal spoke of “trusting [the people] to make wise decisions with [their] money” as being the heart of GOP doctrine. Well, Governor, they—we—did: we voted the GOP out of office in resounding numbers knowing that the Democrats would present a large stimulus package. The package passed the Congress with a large majority, and was signed by the President, and we’ll now see what it does. That’s how democracy works.

  12. Harry Harris

    Gov Jindal’s speech sounded less like a response than a talking-points piece that was completed a week ago, with some heart-strings verbage added to disguise its underlying theme of tax cuts as the prime solution all problems. The oft repeated piece about trusting us to spend (rather than the government)in a manner that will right our economy simply ignores the records or the last four Presidents.

  13. Lee Muller

    Government spending is not investment.
    You cannot balance the budget with tax increases, but only by reducing spending.
    Every dollar of government spending generates 1.7 dollars of secondary spending.
    Every dollar of private investment generates $3.50 of secondary spending and investment.
    Every $3.00 of government spending crowds out $1.00 of private investment.
    Those are just basic economic facts.

  14. Greg Flowers

    I consider myself reasonably well read, not as much so as you apparently, but you are frequently citing very specific numbers without attribution. I would like to be able to go to the source and wish that you would refer to it when you make precise assertions. You don’t have to of course it would just make the numbers more real to me.

  15. Lee Muller

    Mr. Flowers,
    The Theory of Economic Multipliers was invented by John Maynard Keynes in 1936, to provide a new justification for continued public spending in the face of utter failure of such programs to restore economic prosperity in the last two years of Herbert Hoover’s presidency and the first four years of Franklin Roosevelt’s.
    Since a lot of it is rubbish, Keynes and his followers have made it a lot more complex than it needs to be. Such is the case with any theory which is based on false premises and non-factual data.
    It’s only utility to me is that, when done properly, it demonstrates the futility and outright harm of public spending. That is why most public officials, and their academic henchmen, play with the numbers.
    I am going try to boil it down to something shorter that the dense smoke that a Paul Krugman would blow.

Comments are closed.