October 21, 2008
We have a Directors' editorial over at RedState on the many ways in which Obama and the Democrats are likely to seek partisan entrenchment as a primary goal if Obama wins the election, especially if he gets a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Everything on the list has made prior appearances in Obama's agenda and/or the agenda of his Congressional and activist allies. I'm sure most Obama voters don't think they are doing so, but there is a very real possibility that a vote for Obama will be a vote to hand permanent power to the left wing of the Democratic party.
The core question I always ask in politics to determine how agitated to get is how long it will take to undo something. Obviously, my personal short-term concern with an Obama presidency is the vast damage he can do to national security in short order and the personal consequences for my physical security, and I'm not real thrilled about getting my taxes jacked up, either. And no matter how you slice it, the consequences to the judiciary are deeply and lastingly alarming for democracy (we are still dealing with Carter appointees to the federal bench, and even some LBJ appointees). But I think the list fairly well captures my larger concern, which is that the system will be changed such that persuading the current electorate that Obama has been a failure will be insufficient to get rid of him.
If you disbelieve us, I'd advise you to clip and save the list and judge three years from now how many of the things on the list have been at least seriously attempted. I guarantee you that we'll see a move on the first item, the card check bill, within the first 60 days.
You are a magician Crank, you have just tried to suspend reality and rewrite history. The record clearly states you found no fault with W's response to Katrina. Did Obama lie about not being briefed on the severity of the upcoming storm to our largest southern port? Remember there is a video tape of a zoned out President, he just finish a very long bike ride. Spin away, don't disappoint.
Using the Banking collapse as guide let us compare McCain and Obama.
McCain suspends campaign, but takes 22 hours to get from NYC to DC, did not stop any operations for his campaign, and back doored Obama on a mutual deal to put campaigns on the back burner. Funny thing about all that work by McCain did he ended up in the same photos with Obama with all the people that mattered.
So, one guys stays calm and works behind the scenes the other makes wild bold moves and they end up in the same place. Also, taking into account first person accounts from the people that mattered they was not a bad word about Obama. Can we say the same for McCain attempt to submarine a deal to get his name on another? Spin away, we know you will.
To quote John Wooden "be quick but don't hurry"
After 8 years of the mot miserable presidency since Buchanan (and that includes Carter), where we have major long term damage to our foreign policy; our treasury; our armed forces; energy and business contacts meant to ensure money lining the Bush oil and Cheney Haliburton coffers, you worry about damage by an Obama presidency?
How about if McCain wins, and this old guy, in an office that ages everybody a thousandfold, goes, putting Palin in office. What damage then? Let's see: how about this Alaska first business? You know, where she speaks and supports them (which she did, Youtube means nothing is hidden), and now we are supposed to believe her oath of office to preserve, defend and protect. I now realize why she slipped and named McClellan as the general in charge of the Afghanistan war (it's McNeil). McClellan was the clown who ineptly ran the Union army during that little incursion that is only our bloodiest chapter. Then he ran against Lincoln. And she supports that. Thanks, I'll generally take Lincoln's side in all things presidential.
Crank, you are a lawyer. That means you have the same oath about the constitution, don't you? Uh, don't you?
"Our greatest hopes and worst fears are seldom realized." Most of the paranoia list on redstate are small bore issues likely to go nowhere if even raised. (Hasn't a constant theme of your posts being that nothing in Obama's record is reliable? If so, on what basis do you believe these issues are ones that will be pursued no matter what?)
On one issue, I agree. The legacy of the right-wing ideologues appointed by Reagan and Bush II are ones for which we continue to pay. Clarence Thomas, anyone?
Finally, in terms of national security, the Bush/Cheney torture regime has resulted in incalculable harm. Take a look at "The Dark Side" and "Angler" if you want to learn something.
javakev, this belongs in the thread below...I have never said that Bush did nothing wrong in Katrina, only that his Administration also did a number of things right, that the media told a lot of fairy tales and that significant and indeed primary blame should have gone to Gov. Blanco and Mayor Nagin. Anyway, you go to war with the conventional wisdom you have.
Daryl - Wait...since when has Palin taken sides with the 1864 Democratic ticket? This is bizarro world stuff.
Magrooder - Oh, I agree that Obama's record makes it hard to be certain what he will do, but these are the things closest to his heart based on his years as an organizer.
It's not a paranoia list, they are all actual policies that have actually been pursued by actual Democrats in the past.
Also, javakev, link? Please do not tell me you guys are still saying that Bush lied when he said nobody told him the levies would be breached when they told him they could be overtopped. Because breaches were the cause of the flood, and anybody with a second grade education can tell you that the difference between spilling over the top of a bowl and breaking the side of the bowl are two very dramatically different things.
D'oh! Levees. Not a good spelling day.
OK, we'll stick with Katrina. I for one do not blame Bush for the flood. Not even the Corps of Engineers, but the reality of a region known for partisan politics, dirty pool and lining pockets, all parties, making sure the money needed to keep New Orleans safe went to other places. Think of Haliburton I guess.
Where Bush failed was the way Reagan and Clinton did not: Also Bush 1 I guess. They generally got good people and let them do their jobs. Not political hacks with a good political background. Which is what he has also done at DOJ. The real damage then, done by Bush 43 is that he let the zampolits run the show. And it manifested itself in how he managed to not have the right people in place to deal with Katrina. And in the absence of real leadership, the poor saps there got Ray Nagin instead.
Daryl, I agree that Brown was a hack, and also an example of the Peter Principle, as he seems to have had no problems in a lower-level FEMA job. Chertoff, by contrast, is a brilliant lawyer well-suited to running a law enforcement agency. He just had no background in disaster management. Other than Rudy I'm not sure there's a man alive who has the qualifications to handle the whole portfolio of DHS responsibilities.
As to DOJ, the Ashcroft Justice Department was a professional operation, and I'd love to see Ashcroft return to significant government office. The problem was when Bush let Gonzales run the place - everything that man did ended up damaging his boss. The lesson of which, as with Miers and McClellan and even Colin Powell, is that it's wiser to appoint people who are loyal to the president's agenda than to appoint people who are loyal to the president personally.
I'm interested to see the posts that out Colin Powell as a commie and terrorist sympothizer. I mean, he met with Arafat, even shook the man's hand. Clearly, his endorsement of Obama is that of another pinko, America-hater wanting the socialist Arab to take over the country and hand it over to the UN.
Well, jim, I've never been a huge Powell fan, although I generally respect him...the man is retired, he wants to live in peace with his friends and family. I don't think you or I could really understand the immense social pressure that African-Americans are under to support Obama. He didn't exactly deny that that was a significant factor.
So a highly decorated, very successful GENERAL punked out and gave into peer-pressure? This is not exactly the pre-high school prom kegger. Get real.
Oh, and he clearly hates America.
jim, just for giggles, tell me again what you believe Powell did when he described Saddam's WMD programs to the UN, and what his motivation was. I think I am going to hear an evaluation of Powell rather different from your comment above.
I don't think it is incumbent on me to do so. I don't give a flying rip if he endorsed Obama or not. Thing is in GOP World y'all eat your own which is why I am waiting for the hack job on him. Wouldn't it stand to reason that if he bowed to pressure from the White House to give that mostly fraudulent presentation at the UN that they would have loved to sign him up again for an endorsement of the Bush butt boy you have running now? Seems that you have it backwards, not me.
Wouldn't it stand to reason that if he bowed to pressure from the White House to give that mostly fraudulent presentation at the UN that they would have loved to sign him up again for an endorsement of the Bush butt boy you have running now?
So, let me get this straight. You suggest that he gave a fraudulent presentation to the UN, mostly born out of peer pressure by the Bush administration, but then suggest that a "very successful General" is unlikely to "punk out" and give into peer-pressure?
Wow, I hope you wiped after you blew that one out of your ass.
I don't pretend I can read Powell's mind. I do know that his endorsement can't be evaluated outside the enormous pressure to fall in behind an African-American candidate.
Not a lot of intellectual giants here as usual. Let me add it up for you. Powell=Republican. Powell=Carried water for the GOP. Powell=Touted as potential GOP Presidential candidate loe the many years ago. My point, pay close attention, is that he has been a Republican and did their dirty work for them (really, really, really dirty work) and that they can't get him to sidle up to their man this time around. Your conclusion is that it's because he's black. Wow. I mean wow. I'm sure all of the other blacks in America would love to know your point of view on this. Very interesting to know.
Jim - what exactly is a butt boy?
Crank notes that "I don't think ... I could really understand the immense social pressure that African-Americans are under to support Obama" and you take that to mean that he only endorsed Obama because he's black? Is that right?
No need for the 'hack job' on Powell because this was reported/rumored for the last 4 months - it should surprise nobody who has paid any attention to it.
Get your head out of your arse and realize that Crank is saying there are probably lots of reasons why Powell supports the Obama, and one of those may (MAY MAY MAY) be the shared color of their skin.
Butt boy refers to someone who is basically not his own man. Apt description of McCain at this point.
The word MAY (and certainly not MAY, MAY, MAY) was never used. The FIRST thing mentioned was that their shared skin color created pressure (actually, immense pressure) for him to ditch his (apparently) former party and colleagues. Perhaps it does. You would think someone of his stature, experience, intelligance, etc. would be able to make up his own mind rather than just going, "Hey, look a brother running for President. Damn, I guess I'll have to endorse him." Is Condi up next for endorsing Barack? I think Powell's endorsement (along with the myriad of GOPers jumping off the McCain wagon) indicates that something stinks in Denmark (oh, and I am not talking about Denmark really).
jim - Look, my main take is that Powell's just using bad judgment here. In short, he's wrong, and catastrophically so. It would not be the first time; there are good reasons why conservatives have been at loggerheads with Powell for decades. And it is distinctly possible as well, judging by the interview, that his long-time pro-choice leanings are a big factor. One thing I don't buy is the spin that this is because McCain is somehow more conservative than the three Republican presidents Powell served. That's just nonsense on stilts.
But...well, Ryan, when the guy goes on and on about what a 'transformationl' figure Obama is because he's black...you spend an awful lot of "MAY MAY MAY" qualifiers denying what seems pretty obvious from Powell's own words.
His only reason? I have no idea. Probably not. But I'm saying you can't meaningfully evaluate Powell's endorsement outside of that context. I doubt very much that Powell would have felt it necessary to endorse John Edwards.
Anyway, you fellas have yet again threadjacked here to avoid the subject.
BTW, you guys are not seriously going to dispute the gravitational pull of Obama's race with African-Americans, are you? You think Hillary got in the single digits of the black vote in the primaries because she's somehow not acceptable to black voters? Puh-leeze. This is like denying gravity. And McCain will, we all know, get only about half as much support from African-American voters as Bush or Dole or Bush I or Reagan...and not for any reason having anything to do with McCain. This is not exactly a big secret here.
I'm fine with you and y'all thinking Powell is wrong. I have no problem with that. I'm sure you do. I would find it super hard to believe that the first thing or even something in the Top 10 that Powell would consider would be Obama's skin color. If you are equating Powell (GOP guy, public persona, etc.) with the overall "black" vote you are stretching things enormously. And I don't think it's that he would think McCain too conservative. It would appear that there are other things that Powell finds McCain "too..." and I don't think white is one of the answers.
"Anyway, you fellas have yet again threadjacked here to avoid the subject."
Yeah, don't you guys have anything to say on point? The redstate post has a veritable laundry list of democratic proposals. I would think that some hard core dems would be interested in defending them. And still nothing from you guys on the tax issue several posts below. Surely you must have some opinions on this stuff aside from attacking the Bush administration.
jim, I am being realistic. You read enough articles like this one and you see even stalwarts like Rice and JC Watts and Armstrong Williams in one sense or another going out of their way to say nice things about Obama or refusing to commit to vote Republican...you have to seriously (1) not know any black people and (2) deliberately ignore the primaries to pretend that there isn't just an enormous pressure among African-Americans to fall in behind Obama. Powell's human - we're talking about his family, his friends...and then you look at his remarks - yes, he denied it was about race, but:
Powell said the election of Obama would "electrify the world."
"I think he is a transformational figure," Powell said. "He is a new generation coming ... onto the world stage and on the American stage. And for that reason, I'll be voting for Sen. Barack Obama."
"I can't deny that it will be a historic event when an African-American becomes president," Powell continued, speaking live in the studio. "And should that happen, all Americans should be proud - not just African-American, but all Americans - that we have reached this point in our national history where such a thing could happen. It would also not only electrify the country, but electrify the world."
As far as Powell's judgment...his recent experience as a character witness for Ted Stevens doesn't put Obama in the best of company.
"Anyway, you fellas have yet again threadjacked here to avoid the subject."
Crank, you brought up Colin Powell. Not that it matters. Especially since he hates America and, apparently, is a jackass.
jim, why do you think that about Colin Powell? So far as I can tell, he is generally respected, but you seem to have a contrary opinion.
This is off-topic, but Crank, maybe you should school that dope Palin about the Vice Preident's constitutional duties
Palin's not the one who announced in a debate that "Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch" and that the vice president can "preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote" I very much doubt you can provide an example of her being more ignorant than Biden's answer.
Biden's innumerable gaffes have to be the most wholly predictable running mate screwup in presidential history...I mean, everyone who knew anything about Washington thought immediately Biden=Gaffes when his name was floated, and sure enough he's been embarrassing Obama again. What that says about Obama's judgment is not good.
Condi Rice just endorsed Obama!!!!
Or she will imminently because, you know, they are both African-Americans.
Also, I hear Crank will be endorsing the half-white side of Obama.
You people are hilarious. You've spent the last 30 years talking about how Conservatives are color-blind, yet the first thing you see when your world view is threatened is the color of someone's skin. (Knock me down with a feather).
Berto, you seem unable to grasp the distinction between (1) judging a person on the color of their skin and (2) assessing the likelihood that a person is judging someone else on the color of their skin.
I dearly wish that Obama was being judged without regard to race; if that was the case, he'd never have been nominated. Most of us who live in the real world understand that some people are voting for him, and some against, at least in part because of his race. I don't think high-profile endorsers are immune to this.
The D primaries showed very clearly that African-American voters are circling the wagons around Obama, and nobody yet has plausibly argued - I'm not sure anyone has tried - that they sided in such massive numbers (much larger than the splits for white voters in any jurisdiction) with Obama against Hillary for reasons other than race. Anecdotal evidence supports the idea that there is enormous pressure to conform to that. I don't see you disputing any of those points.
Question for you Crank: As the media is in the tank for The One, and the print media in particular is under financial duress, do you think the Dems/Obama might hand out massive subsidies to friendly media as payback and to insure future loyalty? I haven't read anything where that this is being proposed, it just seems to make sense if you want to perpetuate your grip on power.
You are "assessing the likelihood that a person is judging someone else on the color of their skin" simply by looking at the color of the persons skin you think is doing the assessing.
Meanwhile, can you deny you support McCain/ Palin just because they are both, like you, white and Republican?
Anecdotal evidence sure supports that idea as well.
do you think the Dems/Obama might hand out massive subsidies to friendly media as payback and to insure future loyalty?
Not necessary. The MSM and Obama share the same ideological agenda. I would think that, beyond good access to his administration, the mainstream media wouldn't require any monetary coaxing to continue their reenactment of "Debbie does Obama".
Berto - No, white has nothing to do with it. I'm supporting them first and foremost because they're the more conservative ticket, as the Republican ticket almost always is and most certainly is when the Dems run someone like Obama, and of course secondarily because Obama is flagrantly unqualified for the job. I was very much a supporter of Michael Steele, Lynn Swann and Ken Blackwell against white opponents in 2006, for example. And I should note that each of those guys got significant white support against fellow Republicans in winning their nominations. The data point you are continuing to ignore, on which the centerpiece of my argument rests, is that Obama got around 85-90% of the African-American vote in the primaries against Hillary even though Hillary and her husband had about as long a record of drawing black votes as anybody in politics. Nobody has even tried to claim that this is evidence of anything other than black voters voting for Obama on the basis of race. And that evidence, in turn and in combination with statements like these by people who disagree with Obama on almost everything, and in combination with Powell's own comments, naturally colors my view of Powell's likely motivations or at any rate the peer pressure Powell is facing within the black community.
I should note that at every turn in this thread, I have cited facts and evidence and you guys have fallen back on vague generalities. I'm dealing with the real world as it is here based on actual evidence. You are not.
if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes
Unlike Biden, she's not misrepresenting the Constitutional powers of the office. ThinkProgress says that the modern role of the VP has been to preside only in ceremonial fashion, which is true, but nothing in the Constitution requires that; it's a matter of convention and it was not always thus. I don't know that presiding over a Democratic Senate is necessarily the best use of Palin's talents, given that her boss is an expert on the Senate's folkways whereas she's the one on the ticket with executive management experience. But there's nothing at all wrong with pointing out that a VP who wants to shake things up can spend a lot more time in the Senate if she so chooses. Palin's record in Alaska is one in which she's not been afraid to try unconventional tactics to get the legislature to do things, including doing an awful lot of personal arm-twisting to get her pipeline project to a vote.
DKH, It's called sarcasm. I know humor is a foreign concept on the right which is why Dennis Miller now makes hay with y'all but c'mon.
And Crank, you are seriously going with this quote, "I can't deny that it will be a historic event when an African-American becomes president," to show how under pressure Powell is? Can you deny that it would be an historic day? Can anyone? I notice you also left out the part of his speech where he said the GOP was becoming a narrower and narrower party. Nice try but what you are piling on here stinks. I'm also sure that JC Watts is absolutely terrified. Basically you are saying that he is afraid to be around blacks people and is more comfortable in the setting of white folk? That's really what you think? If so you are buying your own smoke screen. Embarrassing.
Crank stated: "The data point you are continuing to ignore, on which the centerpiece of my argument rests, is that Obama got around 85-90% of the African-American vote in the primaries against Hillary even though Hillary and her husband had about as long a record of drawing black votes as anybody in politics. Nobody has even tried to claim that this is evidence of anything other than black voters voting for Obama on the basis of race. And that evidence, in turn and in combination with statements like these by people who disagree with Obama on almost everything, and in combination with Powell's own comments, naturally colors my view of Powell's likely motivations or at any rate the peer pressure Powell is facing within the black community."
I don't know why any of you are bothering to debate this. It is an entirely reasonable position. But apparently, it's easier to talk about race than it is to address the actual topic of the post. So much for the "real issues."
Speaking of the issues, I do have one question about the card check legislation. I'm a little skeptical that it will lead to an entrenchment of the "left-wing of the democratic party." The chain of causation in that argument seems to be stretch:
1) No secret ballots leads to more union members. Well, maybe, but enough to make a difference?
2) More union members means more dues. Same problem: enough to make a difference?
3) Dues go to "left wing" democratic candidates. Unions support many candidates, not all of which are "left-wing" democrats.
4) The money from unions actually make a decisive difference in an election. Unions aren't a large part of the work force. Major contributors, for sure, but enough to result in entrenchment, and specifically, of "left-wing" democrats?
That's a rather long chain, with problems in each link. I don't think you have me too worried.
This Presidential vote is totally about race and skin color and if you can't see that, you are crazy....I have black conservative friends who are voting for Obama, and I keep reminding them that Obama and his lefty illuminati morals and values are the opposite of them and I am sitting there thinking they are racist for voting for him just because he is black, but if I said that aloud, then I would be the racist right?
Do you try to miss the point? You are conflating a generalized for a specific one.
Here is what Colin Powell said about his endorsement of Obama, Powell, in his appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press," denied that race was the motivating factor. He said he had pondered a decision for months, and that he had told Obama, "I'll give you all the advice I can, but I'm not going to vote for you just because you're black."
Powell's decision to cross party lines, former associates said, is far more complicated than black and white.
My point on this was not race but when y'all toss him under the bus. You are flat out calling the man a liar. Well done.
jim, you can't endorse Obama and expect to ever return to being respected by Republicans or conservatives.
It's one thing for ordinary voters to support the guy. If he wins, the people who vote for him will include a fair number of people who the GOP will need to win back. I'm not saying we should stop trying to persuade people who vote for the guy.
But political leaders, pundits, etc. who back Obama do so knowing that he's further to the Left than anybody who's run for President since Henry Wallace, knowing his inexperience and his many bad associations...nobody who under those circumstances falls for his act should be respected and listened to ever again by Republicans, by conservatives. The GOP has run conservatives - Reagan, Bush, Coolidge, Goldwater - but never anybody as far outside the mainstream on so many issues as Obama. It's like if we ran Bob Dornan or Tom Tancredo or Alan Keyes for president - could you ever again respect a Democrat who endorsed a guy like that?
Again, I don't care about who Powell (or anyone) does or does not endorse. It was nice to see y'all get right on Powell and say he didn't think about a damn thing and was only in it for his home boy. I don't care if you like Powell or not although I am guessing if we go into the archives there are at least some pretty nice things said about him here. I was just interested to see the tire tracks. Nice to know that they were black.
I've always been ambivalent about Powell - I just checked and this was the first thing I wrote about him on the site, and you can get the flavor from there.
Apparently he's not the good soldier anymore, huh?
I never questioned the man's loyalty to the chain of command. He's retired now.
It pains me to hear a bunch of white guys opine about African Americans pro and con. As an African-American a couple things I would like to point out why your logic on Colin Powell is just stupid Crank. Historically the military is held in the highest regard in the AA community. This dates back to the Triple Nickels, Mumford Point Marines, and Tuskegee Airmen to name a few. When Colin Powell was named JCS this role placed him well above peer pressure within the AA community. A simple example is Condi Rice and Powell both worked for the Bush administration one is not very popular the other is revered for achievements in past roles and service. So to say he was pressured into this endorsement is being ignorant of the facts and the historical significance of the military in the AA community.
See, I don't disagree with that as far as respect for the military, but I do think that peer pressure - your friends, your family all thinking it's hugely and historically important to back a black candidate - is something that affects human behavior, and Powell is human. Like I said above, when I hear people like Watts and Armstrong Williams wobbling on Obama, that tells me the impact of that pressure is enormous and distinctive to the black community. I mean, are you seriously denying that?
"The GOP has run conservatives - Reagan, Bush, Coolidge, Goldwater - but never anybody as far outside the mainstream on so many issues as Obama."
Dick Cheney is just a figment of my imagination.
While I would disagree about Cheney, who after all was considered before 2000 to be a sensible mainstream figure well-regarded by Democrats and the center-left Beltway press (seriously, look it up), I was talking Presidential candidates. Obviously when the Democrats had Henry Wallace as their VP (as opposed to his independent run in 1948), that was worse.
Crank, you are aware Armstrong has no pull or respect in the AA community? This came full circle when he was caught taking money to promote issues while posing as a journalist. JC Watts was a better wishbone QB than politician, wonder why his career has stalled. My point is simple B/C of Powell achievements in the military he is above reproach on these issues of peer pressure. For crying out loud his son ran the FCC, sounds like a family o f GOPers. But then again you and Rush know more than me on this subject. Simply put his past life’s work gets him a free pass to do say as he pleases influence free.
Perhaps my sarcasm is even drier than yours. My point is that the comments most negative about Powell on this site are brought here by you, even if you're trying to attribute them to conservatives. You may very well be correct about conservatives elsewhere (although you cite no evidence), but you certainly are not correct about anyone here.
You have invented a sentiment and attributed it to those who frequent this site, despite a lack of evidence.
Wow, you really don't get sarcasm. I was mimicking the typical conservative line of the century which falls along the lines of "if you aren't with us, you're anti-american/commie/etc." If you don't think that doesn't and has not happened on this site and (I will give us this one) out there in the more generalized world then you are horridly naive.
It's wonderful that you want to attribute all of these sentiments to conservatives. However, there is no evidence of that in this thread. No one is calling Powell a commie. In fact, you raised the subject of the endorsement and proceeded to apply several viewpoints to conservatives that are completely unwarranted.
Damn, you are thick. This current Admin does it, talk radio does it, GOP politicians do it and it has most certainly been done on this blog if not in this thread. And by "it" I mean disparage anyone who disagrees with them.
As an example: According to your VP nominee I don't live in Real America since I live in a big city that, while not coastal, is close to the coast. By extrapolation I guess I am not a Real American or have Real American Values (whatever the hell that entails in her eyes).
Crank, try reading some history of the Senate (Hint: you'll have to go outside your usual reading list to find something scholarly) and you'll learn that the VP has NO constitutional authority in the legislative branch (Cheney's dreams to the contrary notwithstanding). Also, the Senate leadership would show her the gate in 15 seconds if she tried.
Uh, historically the VP is very much entitled to be the presiding officer of the Senate. You read McCulloch's book on John Adams? It's not an enormously influential role in terms of formal authority, but could I see Palin planting herself in the Senate until they passed an energy bill or a SCOTUS nominee? Yes, I can.
There will be so much socialism going on if the liberal illuminati take control of Washington. I can't wait to see the faces of all those left-wing supporters after they put them in.