The New York Times? Really?

As you might remember, during football lulls, I raise my rodentious head and squeak, for I am The Mouse Who Ate Xanax, the varmint you either love or hate, the infester of your sofa, the one and only mouse mental case who thinks politics and eats Xanax. The Turkey allows me space on the blog not only because he thinks I’m funny at times but also because he thinks pretty much like me in spite of being a birdbrain. I am the opinion editor here, and you know what they say about opinions!

I’m a neurotic commenter on all things political. The obvious political event of the year is the Presidential Election in November. Now that the Texas primary has put Mr. Romney over the top, we officially have a two man race. The tortoise versus the hare. You guess which is which.

Two observations right off the bat: the Democrats are campaigning on nothing and the Republicans are campaigning on — nothing. The Democrats accuse Romney of campaigning on Bain Capital’s successes, and the Republicans defend Romney’s record at Bain, so the Democrats say that Romney is running on his successes at Bain Capital. Makes great sense, doesn’t it? Meanwhile, since Obama cannot run on his real record, he continues to blame Bush while inventing a record we all should believe. With smoke and mirrors, his sidemen have produced two charts, one “proving” that he has been a great job creator and the other “proving” that he is not a big spender of our taxpayers’ money. Both of these glamorous charts are easily debunked if one delves even high school deep into the underlying information. But Obama knows the value of viral marketing and simple-ass charts that our lazy ass voters will take at face value and then re-post and re-post, as does my ex-buddy Diane, on Facebook. So, Obama is really running on — the Internet!

The Internet and its appeal to short attention spans. Yep. SQUEAK!!! The gullible leading the gullible. This mouse hopes that they’re a little less gullible than they were leading up to the 2008 election. Oy vey! How’s that hope and change thing working out for you dolts? Oops? Didn’t work? Then, hey, we need another four years to make it work! Look at the mess we inherited! It wasn’t created in four years, so how can it be fixed in four years?

Great mantra. That’s like, “We have to pass the bill if we want to see what’s in it.”

Listen, Mouse fans, I could monopolize all the space here, but I would be remiss if I didn’t point you toward David Brooks’ great op-ed in the New York Times entitled “The Role of Uncle Sam.” It sure got my juices flowing, making me want to run right out and pick a fight with the cat. For a change, the Times published an opinion that was critical of our current approach to federal government. We need to see more of this, inasmuch as our current approach is unsustainable.

I posted that article on Facebook and immediately got a comment from one of my followers there:

“Well, I agree with his idea of looking at the role of govt as opposed to the morality of it, but I can’t agree with some of the conclusions here… FDR was NOT right to aggressively respond to the Depression as he did. It prolonged the depression. The Great Society? Really? The incremental nature of Progressivism is what got us into this debt mess, in my opinion. But, hey, who am I to say you can’t have your romance?”

I replied:

Some economists agree with your assertion about FDR and some do not. I tend to believe that some of the spending and jobs programs (busywork, in some cases) were necessary at the time to assuage a weary, fearful national psyche at the time. FDR delivered a package of nurturing, replete with fireside chats and inspiring speeches (much unlike our current self-appointed savior who only pontificates). Roosevelt inspired; Obama confounds. Of course, today’s fragmented society is not about to be healed, particularly by a charlatan. I hold this truth to be self-evident: Much of today’s apathetic attitude exists because the Great Depression is not even a distant memory for most. They think that healing means only throwing money at a problem. Where the money comes from they not only don’t give a shit, but couldn’t possibly understand. Our society is composed for the most part of a bunch of whiney, sniveling, non-producers with their hands out. But I digress.

Anyhow, I agree that much governmental overreach traces back to the New Deal and the Great Society. The former was more understandable in the wake of a national crisis. The latter was pure overreach and, as Brooks wrote, conceived in the hope of entrenching Democrat voters with permanent entitlements.

What I think is necessary is driving all of the damn radical ideology — both right and left outpost varieties — from the political discourse. For the good of our society, establish long term goals and commit ourselves to them. Strategic planning is all but absent, having vanished in favor of short-term, feelgood programs that suck in voters. For too long, small groups of people have been coddled just to gain their votes. As long as we coddle people, we’ll create differences: X is more privileged than Y, Y is more privileged than Z, they’re all more privileged than me. If we object to the coddling, we’re branded as racists, homophobes, or anti-Christian. But in fact, it’s the policies that exacerbate the differences. OK, so let’s stop all that useless shit and treat everyone as we would like to be treated without showing favors to any particular group. Social engineering is a failed philosophy.

I’m for small government — and by small, I don’t mean laying off 250 people in the National Parks Service, I mean excising the departments of Energy and Education. Some of the most oppressive crap comes at their behest. We’re putting money in people’s pockets to oppress us? Doesn’t seem to make sense.

What Obama wants to create is a world of communist equality. Organize the proletariat, put the clamps on capitalism, establish a broad, privileged government class. So long as there are ideologues who agree with him, along with fools who buy his way as a better way, we’re going nowhere but down the same tubes that swallowed the Soviet Union.

I do squeak off onto lots of tangents, don’t I. But it keeps my idle paws out of trouble. I could be running around finding bits of food under the watchful eye of that damn cat.

Be sure to take a look at my human friend Drozz’s blog, The Double Standard.

I’m off to see my shrink, Dr. Verbrent Musburger.


  1. says

    in military terms, those charts did not pass the giggle test.

    thanks for the shoutout. any thoughts on romney’s VP? was hoping paul ryan or maybe one of the pauls.

    • says

      Unfortunately, while I think that Ryan and Paul (Jr/Sr) would be great choices for the libertarian in me, I don’t think they satisfy the political necessity of sucking in a lot of votes from crucial states. Thus, I am thinking that the nominee will be either Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush, who are both very popular here in Florida, undeniably a crucial swing state. Until lately, Jeb has brushed off questions relating to any interest in the Veep job; however, his responses of late are cannily couched, such as, “I continue to think that Marco Rubio is the best man for the job.” On the other hand, Romney has been spending time with theDonald lately. I hope there’s nothing in the works in that area, but it’s important to keep Trump’s mind off the idea of running a third-party campaign. In return for his support, Romney will have to throw him a bone, like a ambassadorship or Hair Czar or something. Just not Veep. Donald’s too loose a cannon to be directly associated with the campaign.


  2. Artificially Sweetened says

    I believe that U.S. Americans who have their haircuts paid for by taxpayer dollars can and should be told how to wear their hair.

    • says

      OK, then. That seals the deal. There will be an Office of Hair Regulation under the Department of Homeland Security. Its Czar will be theDonald and its Czarina will be Grace Jones, for proper diversity.


Leave a Reply