We're on Day 14 of the government shutdown, all because Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell don't know how to keep their party in check. There's a lot that the GOP could learn from a P-I-M-P. Hell, there's a lot they could have learned from Nancy Pelosi, who still keeps her party in check without benefit or need of the title of Speaker.
Mind you, I've written admiringly about pimps before, not because I respect what they do, but because I respect their ability to get something so morally bankrupt done with minimal (or minimized) transaction costs. If pimps (well, real pimps, not government pimps) were running the GOP, Senator Ted Cruz' idiot idea of shutting down the government until Obamacare was defunded would not have gotten far. (And kudos to Bob Schieffer for repeatedly asking how the GOP let Ted Cruz get this far. As far as I'm concerned, Bob Schieffer is the only thinking journalist on the Sunday morning talk show circuit.)
You see, pimpin' runs on rules and hierarchy that maintain smooth relations (and pardon the language -- it's the language of pimpin', not mine). Rule: A bitch can't look a pimp in the eye. Rule: When a pimp is walking on the sidewalk, a bitch gets off of it. Rule: A bitch can't talk to pimps other than her own. Rule: A pimp's bottom bitch has seniority and priority over the pimp's other bitches.
If seniority and hierarchy account for anything, and analogizing to pimpin', how is it that Senator Ted Cruz, who is, shall we say, "new to the game," able to lead a cabal of new bitches to shut down the government without the pimps (party leaders) keeping them in check? At the very least, no government shutdown formed in Congress should have gone off without the say-so of Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, as well as the say-so of more senior pimps, uh, leaders, like Senator John McCain (Mack of the Year, 2008). Even if the party leaders agreed with it, they, and not the Tea Party bitches new to the game, should have been leading the shutdown and deciding what terms would lead to the government's reopening, not the other way around. GOP, where are your rules? Where is your hierarchy? Where is your pimp game?
If Senator Cruz were a bitch, he'd be considered "out of pocket." The other pimps would have had permission to beat him for being "out of pocket" and leading the other bitches astray.
I guess the GOP's senior pimps, uh, leaders, have absolutely no pimp game whatsoever and definitely less than Nancy Pelosi. Imagine that.
Could someone from the GOP call Too Short so we can get the government running again?
Oh, and Speaker Boehner, the first rule of pimpin'? Don't love them bitches. Just sayin'.
Showing posts with label John Boehner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Boehner. Show all posts
Debt Ceiling Mistakes All Around: I Call B.S.
So . . . Standard & Poors, which didn't downgrade all those mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the housing bubble meltdown, found the stones to downgrade, of all things, U.S. treasuries?
I call B.S.
But first, there are a lot of mistakes to go around, starting with my own. My mistake was allowing the stop-loss orders on my 401(k) stock holdings to expire while all this debt ceiling madness was going on. I was preoccupied with other things going on in my life and just didn't pay attention. The unrealized gains on my 401(k) holdings took a major haircut from 29% to 8%. Nothing to do but ride it out. Had I had my stop-loss orders in place, I could have gone back and re-bought all my perfectly good holdings for a lot less, in essence shorting my own stock portfolio. I've got another fourteen years to ride it out, but lesson learned: Always keep your stop-loss orders in place so when stupid people panic and sell, you're not stuck talking about unrealized gains instead of realized gains.
Second, I blame President Obama for even negotiating the debt ceiling increase with the Tea Party Terrorists in the first place. Yes, I said it: Tea Party Terrorists. Mind you, I have friends in the Tea Party and I respect that they've done more than just talk -- they get out and support their candidates and hew closely to their principles. But to hold the debt ceiling hostage and create unnecessary worry in the markets? I call B.S. But the President should have never even deigned to negotiate the debt ceiling increase. He should have simply said, "No president before me has ever negotiated the increase of the debt ceiling that is an inevitable result of Congress passing a budget that requires greater revenues than our taxes provide. I'm not going to be the first." The off-the-record remarks should have been, "Oh HELL no, the first (real) Black president ain't going out like that. If Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, I will and let them fight it out with the Supreme Court."
Third, I blame the Tea Party and the Republican Party. Republicans, I know and like a lot of you, but your Tea Party is out of pocket and you need to get them in check. There is no way any elected official with any sense of statesman- or stateswomanship would have let the debt ceiling negotiations go for so long and so cattywhampus to the detriment of the entire nation. This whole thing was nothing more than an effort to embarrass and weaken the President, otherwise the spending would have been cut from the budget. Do you folks hate President Obama that much that you'd stick it to the rest of the nation to prove some point? It's a good thing I'm paying off my credit cards and my mortgage is a 30-year fixed, otherwise you folks would have to get a restraining order against me, especially the Tan Man (Boehner) in all his glorious ineptitude.
But I also blame Standard & Poors. Even as bass-awkwards as our political system has become, do you S & P asswipes really think France has a better chance of paying off its debt than we do? Really? Where were you guys when people with no jobs, a 500 FICO score and a barely discernible pulse were able to get no doc, interest-amortizing balloon mortgages for houses they could not afford? So, those folks were a good credit risk but the good ol' U.S. of A., which has never defaulted on debt, gets a markdown because of temporary insanity in Congress? I call major B.S.
Finally, I blame us as a nation. This recession was a man-made injury created by ignorance and greed. A lot of people are going to come out of it with lower incomes and lower net worth because many of the jobs we lost here in America aren't coming back. America, we used our homes as ATM machines and monuments to our own financial ignorance, and we allowed corporate America to pimp us, run with the money, and leave us -- as individuals and as tax-paying citizens -- holding the bag. All that quantitative easing and TARP money is just more debt on our national credit card.
And China is so not going to give us a limit increase on that credit card.
Time for Americans to wake up and play smarter, not harder, with our finances and our politics.
I call B.S.
But first, there are a lot of mistakes to go around, starting with my own. My mistake was allowing the stop-loss orders on my 401(k) stock holdings to expire while all this debt ceiling madness was going on. I was preoccupied with other things going on in my life and just didn't pay attention. The unrealized gains on my 401(k) holdings took a major haircut from 29% to 8%. Nothing to do but ride it out. Had I had my stop-loss orders in place, I could have gone back and re-bought all my perfectly good holdings for a lot less, in essence shorting my own stock portfolio. I've got another fourteen years to ride it out, but lesson learned: Always keep your stop-loss orders in place so when stupid people panic and sell, you're not stuck talking about unrealized gains instead of realized gains.
Second, I blame President Obama for even negotiating the debt ceiling increase with the Tea Party Terrorists in the first place. Yes, I said it: Tea Party Terrorists. Mind you, I have friends in the Tea Party and I respect that they've done more than just talk -- they get out and support their candidates and hew closely to their principles. But to hold the debt ceiling hostage and create unnecessary worry in the markets? I call B.S. But the President should have never even deigned to negotiate the debt ceiling increase. He should have simply said, "No president before me has ever negotiated the increase of the debt ceiling that is an inevitable result of Congress passing a budget that requires greater revenues than our taxes provide. I'm not going to be the first." The off-the-record remarks should have been, "Oh HELL no, the first (real) Black president ain't going out like that. If Congress doesn't raise the debt ceiling, I will and let them fight it out with the Supreme Court."
Third, I blame the Tea Party and the Republican Party. Republicans, I know and like a lot of you, but your Tea Party is out of pocket and you need to get them in check. There is no way any elected official with any sense of statesman- or stateswomanship would have let the debt ceiling negotiations go for so long and so cattywhampus to the detriment of the entire nation. This whole thing was nothing more than an effort to embarrass and weaken the President, otherwise the spending would have been cut from the budget. Do you folks hate President Obama that much that you'd stick it to the rest of the nation to prove some point? It's a good thing I'm paying off my credit cards and my mortgage is a 30-year fixed, otherwise you folks would have to get a restraining order against me, especially the Tan Man (Boehner) in all his glorious ineptitude.
But I also blame Standard & Poors. Even as bass-awkwards as our political system has become, do you S & P asswipes really think France has a better chance of paying off its debt than we do? Really? Where were you guys when people with no jobs, a 500 FICO score and a barely discernible pulse were able to get no doc, interest-amortizing balloon mortgages for houses they could not afford? So, those folks were a good credit risk but the good ol' U.S. of A., which has never defaulted on debt, gets a markdown because of temporary insanity in Congress? I call major B.S.
Finally, I blame us as a nation. This recession was a man-made injury created by ignorance and greed. A lot of people are going to come out of it with lower incomes and lower net worth because many of the jobs we lost here in America aren't coming back. America, we used our homes as ATM machines and monuments to our own financial ignorance, and we allowed corporate America to pimp us, run with the money, and leave us -- as individuals and as tax-paying citizens -- holding the bag. All that quantitative easing and TARP money is just more debt on our national credit card.
And China is so not going to give us a limit increase on that credit card.
Time for Americans to wake up and play smarter, not harder, with our finances and our politics.
Michele Bachmann Is Passing For White
All the blogosphere is atwitter (get it?) about Michele Bachmann signing a document called "The Marriage Vow" which declares that a black child born during slavery was more likely to be raised by both parents than a black child born after the election of our nation's first black president.
That Michele Bachmann would show any concern whatsoever about black children being raised by both their parents in marriage when her own parents divorced confirms for me what I suspected all along: Michele Bachmann is passing for white.
Yeah, I said it. I think Michele Bachmann is black. Why else would she even care about black children and their chances of being raised by both their parents?
Long before I found out about her "Marriage Vow" and her deeply held concern for black children, I always suspected she wasn't straight-up white.
"Look at her," I told my husband, Black Man Not Blogging (BMNB), when I first saw Michele Bachmann on TV, "she's got that tawny cast . . . that deep beige skin tone that, back in the day, would have been hailed proudly as that of an 'octoroon.'"
My husband, who has relatives who span the skin color spectrum from lighter than Michele Bachmann to deep chocolate, stared hard at her image on the screen and said, "Well, you might be on to something there. She's got the same skin color as Mary Landrieu, and Landrieu looks mixed, too." Looks to me that Michele Bachman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris are about the same skin color. I'm just sayin' . . .
Could it be spray tanner? Nah. Not orange enough, like John Boehner, although it would be perfectly acceptable for her to use spray tanner given that she represents Minnesota.
Could we be on the verge of having our -- dare I say it? -- first African American female president?
Ms. Bachmann, I urge to you reconnect with your African American roots and embrace your real people. Nothing else explains your concern for black children. It's not too late for you to learn how to fry catfish, make a better-than-average potato salad, and do the Electric Slide. You can even put the flat iron away and embrace your hair's true texture. Rock that 'fro and go.
And while you're at it, tell Mary Landrieu and President Jimmy Carter they can stop passing for white, too.
That Michele Bachmann would show any concern whatsoever about black children being raised by both their parents in marriage when her own parents divorced confirms for me what I suspected all along: Michele Bachmann is passing for white.
Yeah, I said it. I think Michele Bachmann is black. Why else would she even care about black children and their chances of being raised by both their parents?
Long before I found out about her "Marriage Vow" and her deeply held concern for black children, I always suspected she wasn't straight-up white.
"Look at her," I told my husband, Black Man Not Blogging (BMNB), when I first saw Michele Bachmann on TV, "she's got that tawny cast . . . that deep beige skin tone that, back in the day, would have been hailed proudly as that of an 'octoroon.'"
My husband, who has relatives who span the skin color spectrum from lighter than Michele Bachmann to deep chocolate, stared hard at her image on the screen and said, "Well, you might be on to something there. She's got the same skin color as Mary Landrieu, and Landrieu looks mixed, too." Looks to me that Michele Bachman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris are about the same skin color. I'm just sayin' . . .
Could it be spray tanner? Nah. Not orange enough, like John Boehner, although it would be perfectly acceptable for her to use spray tanner given that she represents Minnesota.
Could we be on the verge of having our -- dare I say it? -- first African American female president?
Ms. Bachmann, I urge to you reconnect with your African American roots and embrace your real people. Nothing else explains your concern for black children. It's not too late for you to learn how to fry catfish, make a better-than-average potato salad, and do the Electric Slide. You can even put the flat iron away and embrace your hair's true texture. Rock that 'fro and go.
And while you're at it, tell Mary Landrieu and President Jimmy Carter they can stop passing for white, too.
It's The Economy, Mr. President . . . And Some Better Communication, Too
Dear Mr. President,
You described the turn of events in Tuesday's mid-term elections as a "shellackin'." The Republicans have claimed victory and a rejection of your policies, Speaker-Elect Boehner has declared himself the new sheriff in town, and Speaker Pelosi is pondering her future.
Were this about any of you personally, your collective opinions might matter. But they don't because it's not about any of you, your parties, or the normal shift of power that happens during the midterms.
It's the economy, Mr. President, plain and simple. Oh, and some better communication, too. At the risk of being brash, let me, as the young kids say, break it down for you, Mr. President.
With all due respect, Mr. President, when people were losing their jobs and their homes, you failed to make the case clear as to why bailing out the Wall Street whackjobs was going to make Michael and Mary Middle-Class or Wendell and Wanda Working-Poor any better off. Bailing out AIG, BofA, and Goldman didn't translate into apparent gains for the middle class and the working poor. Sure, you probably staved off having the entire world economy go off the cliff, but you never clearly answered the gut-level, self-interested, Adam Smith-esque question on every financially terrorized taxpayer's mind -- "What's in it for me?" You simply failed to connect the dots or show your work in this transitive equation. Plus, you didn't dot your I's and cross your T's to make sure that the bailed-out banks that were "too big to fail" were also required to start lending again and to start modifying the very mortgages that got them in this hot mess in the first place. And when Goldman was getting zero interest loans from the Fed and turning around to buy t-bills, basically pimping the government that helped them, I know I felt like a piece of taxpayer tail. I'm sure other hard-working, tax-paying Americans did, too.
Second, you failed to make people who were losing their jobs and their homes understand why health care was such a high priority that it had to be dealt with first before the economy got back on track. Sure, you passed the stimulus, but you got so bogged down in the health care debate that you failed to again connect the dots as to when, where and how the stimulus would work. With unemployment higher now then when you took office, you no longer get to blame your predecessor --even if it is his fault -- because things got worse on your watch. I'm to blame, too, as I got caught up in health care reform fever and the idea of what could be accomplished, and I did so from the comfort of a secure job, albeit one with wage cuts. But health care reform isn't and wasn't a priority to folks who don't have jobs and don't have homes, especially when no emergency room is ever going to turn them away if they're in dire straits.
Third, you failed to communicate consistently and substantively about your accomplishments. Frankly, Mr. President, I think you assume a level of understanding that's over the head of most of the people you lead. Sure, you need the facts and figures to back up your assertions, but you need to speak simply, plainly, and consistently about the results you've achieved. When you face setbacks, as you have with unemployment, you need to do more than commiserate -- you need to state simply, plainly and consistently what you're going to do differently when confronted with bad results.
Fourth, you didn't take the Tea Party seriously until it was too late. I live in Tea Party Central, and I have friends and neighbors in the Tea Party. They know I'm a liberal Democrat, and on local issues, we are actually in agreement -- local governments have to be fiscally conservative because they don't print their own money. You needed to not only respect the Tea Party but address their concerns early and head on, as well as confront their policy inconsistencies -- like opposing health care reform as Socialist but not wanting to lose Medicare or Social Security -- in a consistent and respectful manner. And you needed to ask this very important question: What would you do differently, and how would that accomplish the goal of lowering spending and reducing the deficit? I get along with Tea Partyiers for two reasons: One, I'm respectful and admit they do have some valid points, because they do; and Two, I have the luxury you don't have -- I don't have to engage them on issues of national policy. I'm able to agree with them on local issues. Maybe you need to find some issues -- ANY ISSUES -- with which you can agree with them and make peace. If they fail to meet you halfway in finding solutions to the nation's problems, then that reflects on them, not you. Perhaps you should have just the newly-elected Tea Party candidates to the White House for -- what else -- tea?
Fifth, you failed to keep the momentum of your campaign going. You got all these new young voters and unlikely voters to the polls, and then you hunkered down with the usual wonks and pols and didn't use them, didn't call them until the midterms came around. Pardon my language, Mr. President, but you made the movement you created in 2008 into an electoral booty call. The problem with a booty call is that you can't call two years later asking for another one. By that time, the other person has moved on. So did your youth vote and your unlikely voters.
Finally, you forgot that you are a black man in America. There are people out there who want to see you fail just because of that and the fact that they believe you're not entitled to what you have because of your Ivy League pedigree that they don't have. As you know, politics is all about relationships, and maybe you need to be more accessible and overcome the latent prejudices I know some of our political leaders may have by simply getting to know folks better. Quite frankly, when I voted for you for president of the Harvard Law Review, I thought you were kinda aloof then, but since the Law Review tries to appear to be a meritocracy, it didn't matter -- you were able to win on the sheer strength on your intellect. And, quite frankly, I hated Law Review and was pretty aloof myself. Well, Mr. President, the nation isn't a meritocracy -- in fact, we embody the "tall poppy" syndrome of our neighbors south of the equator and enjoy taking down in size the folks who are smarter than we are, especially if we believe their good fortune is undeserved. People can oppose you as a smart-ass Ivy League elite when in fact they despise you because of your race, and they can find common ground with those who despise you because you appear to be a smart-ass Ivy League elite. That's why Republicans are doing the happy dance on a whole host of fronts. That's why Bill Clinton never played the "Rhodes Scholar" card in public -- he understood that he had to get along to go along and not to appear as smart as he was. In other words, instead of appearing to be a tall poppy, he chose to embrace being a Bubba poppy in public. With all due respect, stop being a tall poppy and start being the likable poppy.
But net-net, as my best friend says, you gotta get people back to work. Co-opt the Republicans' plans to do this if you must, but if people aren't back to work soon, all of you in Washington will be turned out in 2012. It's the economy, Mr. President, plain and simple. It's not personal when people don't have any money. They'd vote for a goat if it had a workable economic plan.
Mr. President, I would really like to see you have a second term because, more than any other president in my lifetime, I think you understand that the decisions you make have to be good for the country for generations to come and not just for the next election cycle. I believe the Democratic Party and Speaker Pelosi believe the same. But if you don't get people back to work, you won't have the privilege of making the long-term decisions for our country's best interests. I think that if you take these points under advisement and plan accordingly, you can have a second term. You're not the first president to get shellacked during the midterms. This is your challenge, and I believe you can rise above it.
Sincerely,
Black Woman Blogging
P.S. Could you also get a consistent policy on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? If you don't support it, let it die, no matter how it gets killed.
P.P.S. Please tell Speaker Pelosi to man up . . . uh, I mean, woman up. As my mom used to say, "We all get knocked down in life. And you can lie there for a little while. But then you have to get back up." If she allows this defeat to keep her down, she's going to take a generation of future women leaders with her.
You described the turn of events in Tuesday's mid-term elections as a "shellackin'." The Republicans have claimed victory and a rejection of your policies, Speaker-Elect Boehner has declared himself the new sheriff in town, and Speaker Pelosi is pondering her future.
Were this about any of you personally, your collective opinions might matter. But they don't because it's not about any of you, your parties, or the normal shift of power that happens during the midterms.
It's the economy, Mr. President, plain and simple. Oh, and some better communication, too. At the risk of being brash, let me, as the young kids say, break it down for you, Mr. President.
With all due respect, Mr. President, when people were losing their jobs and their homes, you failed to make the case clear as to why bailing out the Wall Street whackjobs was going to make Michael and Mary Middle-Class or Wendell and Wanda Working-Poor any better off. Bailing out AIG, BofA, and Goldman didn't translate into apparent gains for the middle class and the working poor. Sure, you probably staved off having the entire world economy go off the cliff, but you never clearly answered the gut-level, self-interested, Adam Smith-esque question on every financially terrorized taxpayer's mind -- "What's in it for me?" You simply failed to connect the dots or show your work in this transitive equation. Plus, you didn't dot your I's and cross your T's to make sure that the bailed-out banks that were "too big to fail" were also required to start lending again and to start modifying the very mortgages that got them in this hot mess in the first place. And when Goldman was getting zero interest loans from the Fed and turning around to buy t-bills, basically pimping the government that helped them, I know I felt like a piece of taxpayer tail. I'm sure other hard-working, tax-paying Americans did, too.
Second, you failed to make people who were losing their jobs and their homes understand why health care was such a high priority that it had to be dealt with first before the economy got back on track. Sure, you passed the stimulus, but you got so bogged down in the health care debate that you failed to again connect the dots as to when, where and how the stimulus would work. With unemployment higher now then when you took office, you no longer get to blame your predecessor --even if it is his fault -- because things got worse on your watch. I'm to blame, too, as I got caught up in health care reform fever and the idea of what could be accomplished, and I did so from the comfort of a secure job, albeit one with wage cuts. But health care reform isn't and wasn't a priority to folks who don't have jobs and don't have homes, especially when no emergency room is ever going to turn them away if they're in dire straits.
Third, you failed to communicate consistently and substantively about your accomplishments. Frankly, Mr. President, I think you assume a level of understanding that's over the head of most of the people you lead. Sure, you need the facts and figures to back up your assertions, but you need to speak simply, plainly, and consistently about the results you've achieved. When you face setbacks, as you have with unemployment, you need to do more than commiserate -- you need to state simply, plainly and consistently what you're going to do differently when confronted with bad results.
Fourth, you didn't take the Tea Party seriously until it was too late. I live in Tea Party Central, and I have friends and neighbors in the Tea Party. They know I'm a liberal Democrat, and on local issues, we are actually in agreement -- local governments have to be fiscally conservative because they don't print their own money. You needed to not only respect the Tea Party but address their concerns early and head on, as well as confront their policy inconsistencies -- like opposing health care reform as Socialist but not wanting to lose Medicare or Social Security -- in a consistent and respectful manner. And you needed to ask this very important question: What would you do differently, and how would that accomplish the goal of lowering spending and reducing the deficit? I get along with Tea Partyiers for two reasons: One, I'm respectful and admit they do have some valid points, because they do; and Two, I have the luxury you don't have -- I don't have to engage them on issues of national policy. I'm able to agree with them on local issues. Maybe you need to find some issues -- ANY ISSUES -- with which you can agree with them and make peace. If they fail to meet you halfway in finding solutions to the nation's problems, then that reflects on them, not you. Perhaps you should have just the newly-elected Tea Party candidates to the White House for -- what else -- tea?
Fifth, you failed to keep the momentum of your campaign going. You got all these new young voters and unlikely voters to the polls, and then you hunkered down with the usual wonks and pols and didn't use them, didn't call them until the midterms came around. Pardon my language, Mr. President, but you made the movement you created in 2008 into an electoral booty call. The problem with a booty call is that you can't call two years later asking for another one. By that time, the other person has moved on. So did your youth vote and your unlikely voters.
Finally, you forgot that you are a black man in America. There are people out there who want to see you fail just because of that and the fact that they believe you're not entitled to what you have because of your Ivy League pedigree that they don't have. As you know, politics is all about relationships, and maybe you need to be more accessible and overcome the latent prejudices I know some of our political leaders may have by simply getting to know folks better. Quite frankly, when I voted for you for president of the Harvard Law Review, I thought you were kinda aloof then, but since the Law Review tries to appear to be a meritocracy, it didn't matter -- you were able to win on the sheer strength on your intellect. And, quite frankly, I hated Law Review and was pretty aloof myself. Well, Mr. President, the nation isn't a meritocracy -- in fact, we embody the "tall poppy" syndrome of our neighbors south of the equator and enjoy taking down in size the folks who are smarter than we are, especially if we believe their good fortune is undeserved. People can oppose you as a smart-ass Ivy League elite when in fact they despise you because of your race, and they can find common ground with those who despise you because you appear to be a smart-ass Ivy League elite. That's why Republicans are doing the happy dance on a whole host of fronts. That's why Bill Clinton never played the "Rhodes Scholar" card in public -- he understood that he had to get along to go along and not to appear as smart as he was. In other words, instead of appearing to be a tall poppy, he chose to embrace being a Bubba poppy in public. With all due respect, stop being a tall poppy and start being the likable poppy.
But net-net, as my best friend says, you gotta get people back to work. Co-opt the Republicans' plans to do this if you must, but if people aren't back to work soon, all of you in Washington will be turned out in 2012. It's the economy, Mr. President, plain and simple. It's not personal when people don't have any money. They'd vote for a goat if it had a workable economic plan.
Mr. President, I would really like to see you have a second term because, more than any other president in my lifetime, I think you understand that the decisions you make have to be good for the country for generations to come and not just for the next election cycle. I believe the Democratic Party and Speaker Pelosi believe the same. But if you don't get people back to work, you won't have the privilege of making the long-term decisions for our country's best interests. I think that if you take these points under advisement and plan accordingly, you can have a second term. You're not the first president to get shellacked during the midterms. This is your challenge, and I believe you can rise above it.
Sincerely,
Black Woman Blogging
P.S. Could you also get a consistent policy on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? If you don't support it, let it die, no matter how it gets killed.
P.P.S. Please tell Speaker Pelosi to man up . . . uh, I mean, woman up. As my mom used to say, "We all get knocked down in life. And you can lie there for a little while. But then you have to get back up." If she allows this defeat to keep her down, she's going to take a generation of future women leaders with her.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)