Barack Obama

The Pomp and Circumstance of the Inauguration

The only part of the inaugural ceremony required by the Constitution is the oath of office.


Congressional Quarterly's comprehensive "Guide to the Presidency" helpfully explains that "the only part of the inaugural ceremony that is required by the Constitution is the taking of the oath of office." If only somebody had bothered to check, we could have wrapped it all up Sunday when Chief Justice John Roberts swore Barack Obama in for his second term, and spared ourselves an extra day's worth of pomp, circumstance and dreadful poetry.

After his swearing-in, "Calvin Coolidge simply went to bed in 1925." George Washington's admirably brief second inaugural clocks in at 135 words. But modern presidents fail to appreciate that for presidential inaugurations, as with presidential activism, less is more. In his first inaugural, in 1993, Bill Clinton suggested that the ritual of presidential anointment brings hope and life to the world: "This ceremony is held in the depth of winter. But, by the words we speak and the faces we show the world, we force the spring."

In his unsettling second inaugural, in the midst of two bloody and seemingly endless wars, an unfazed George W. Bush pledged America to "the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Four years ago in his first inaugural, a newly anointed President Obama promised a transformational presidency that would "wield technology's wonders" and "harness the sun and the winds." He decried "the cynics" who dared to "question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest our system cannot tolerate too many big plans."

This time around, the president seems not to have adjusted the scale of his ambitions downward. Columnist Steve Chapman summed it up on Twitter: "Shorter Obama inaugural speech: I'm a liberal. Deal with it."

Would that it had been shorter. Though most of yesterday's address was a high-minded word-souffle, light on specific policy prescriptions, several passages stuck out. For example: "We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future."

That's an odd response to fiscal reality from the president of the self-styled "reality-based community." As my colleague Mike Tanner noted recently, "if one includes the full future unfunded liabilities of Social Security and Medicare, our real indebtedness could run as high as $129 trillion in current dollars."

"The path towards sustainable energy sources … [is] what will lend meaning to the creed our fathers once declared." I'd thought it was pretty brazen when Energy Secretary Steven Chu dismissed the taxpayers' half-billion-dollar loss in the Solyndra debacle by saying, "One has to take risks in order to promote innovative manufacturing." But at least Chu stopped short of invoking Jefferson for the administration's pet green energy schemes.

"Enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war." It's more brazen still to hear a denunciation of "perpetual war" from the president who has institutionalized it. In the investigative report from The Washington Post last fall that introduced us to the term "disposition matrix" (Obama-Newspeak for "presidential kill list"), we learned that "among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that [drone-warfare] operations are likely to be extended at least another decade … no clear end is in sight."

Might I recommend, as a post-inaugural hangover cure, my new e-book, False Idol? In it, I suggest that "Obama's failure might, to borrow one of the president's favorite phrases, serve as a 'teachable moment,' encouraging Americans to better align our expectations with reality."

A president's magic words cannot "force the spring" to come earlier, "end tyranny in our world," suspend budgetary math or make the current welfare-warfare state affordable. It's past time we learned that lesson.

This article originally appeared at The Washington Examiner.

NEXT: Louisiana Trafic Judge Pleads Guilty to Bribery Charges

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. We reject the belief that America must choose between caring for the generation that built this country and investing in the generation that will build its future.”

    We reject math and accounting in all of their bourgeois truths. We embrace only the revolutionary truth

    1. I still keep getting caught up in the “generation that built this country” line. Who the fuck wrote this shit?

      1. There was no country before 1930? You want to know who wrote it? One of these douche bags or someone just like them.

        These people are completely ignorant. They are just apes.

        1. apes

          There you go again.

        2. All humans are just apes.

      2. The founding generation? You didn’t build that. The generation that pioneered the west and fought the civil war? You didn’t build that.

      3. The generation that was community-minded enough to go to war against Naziism and fascism, meanwhile advancing technology and scientific understanding exponentially, building a national infrastructure and a modern welfare state that was bequeathed to their children and grandchildren, some of whom now think that they deserve everything in life for free.

        1. I know you are stupid and incapable of doing basic math, but the generation that did those things are pretty much dead. Unless you were born before 1925, you didn’t do much to defeat the Nazis.

          The generation that is old now is the generation that fought the Vietnam war and gave us the 70s. So do us all a favor and shut your ignorant, hateful mouth and stop infecting the site with stupid.

          1. You first. Who gives a shit what generation he’s talking about. It’s a rhetorical point. And the point is this: in order to be a decent nation, let alone a great nation, it is required to spend some fucking money. You can argue we should stop being decent or great, but you can’t argue that we can be decent and great while not spending any money in the pursuit.

            1. Sure Tony, were we not a decent nation in 1999? How about we spend money like we did then, adjusted for inflation? If that is not good enough, please explain why Bill Clinton was evil. Or in the mean time shut up you fascist little lying fuck.

              1. The world is a little bit different from how it was in 1999. We have like double the unemployment, meaning social services are costing government more. We also have two wars your president started (while cutting taxes).

                This is the problem with you national accountant ninnies (who were conspicuously absent from 2000-2008). Your argument is that we need to spend less, but you don’t specify how. Then you pick some arbitrary date that has no relevance to the state of the country today. (Of course you don’t want the tax rates that come with that arbitrary date.) You’re just blowing smoke up everyone’s ass and pretending to be responsible people.

                1. Okay Tony, keep welfare and social net spending exactly where it is and reduce everything else back to that levels.

                  A group of plutocrats are stealing the country’s future. Don’t you love taxing working people so billionaires can get green energy loans? Don’t you love running up debts our children will pay so wall street can be given trillions of dollars?

                  That is what you stand for Tony. That and assassinating American citizens is Obama’s record. You own it. That is who you are.

                  1. Better than the Iraq war and torture.

                    1. So murdering American citizens is better than the Iraq war? I think American citizens might disagree.

                      And Obama just appointed the John Brenneman, the guy behind the Bush torture policies to run the CIA. So we still have the torture part. Try again sock puppet.

                    2. Really, Tony? Really? Seriously. Really?

                2. This is the problem with you national accountant ninnies (who were conspicuously absent from 2000-2008).


                3. “two wars that [your] president started”

                  and which YOUR party voted for as well, Tony.

                  If your Team had one goddamned ounce of integrity, every one of those Democrat fuckers in office would have voted “no” to authorize the Iraq war.

            2. “The generation that was community-minded enough to go to war against Naziism and fascism”

              “community minded” via being conscripted?

            3. “Who gives a shit what generation he’s talking about. It’s a rhetorical point.”

              So it was meaningless? OK then.

            4. And fuck you Tony. This generation went to war with the Islamics, over and over again for over ten years now. What have you done for that cause beyond vote for President Drone Strike and think it is is fucking great as long as your team is in charge?

            5. And the point is this: in order to be a decent nation, let alone a great nation, it is required to spend some fucking money

              So the truth comes out, the US is only a great and decent nation because of its welfare system. By that logic Denmark is the greatest nation on earth. We’ll all be speaking Danish in a few year, am I right?

              1. Denmark is a superior country by many measures.

                1. Somalia, not so much.

                  1. Yep, if Somalia just spent a lot more, they’d be a world power. Nothing to do with the culture, the people, the previous gov’t, etc.

                    Your spending dial goes to 11, doesn’t it?

                2. I don’t see you itching to move there T o n y. Why is that again?

                3. “Denmark is a superior country by many measures.”

                  Prove it – with unequivocal and absolute definitiveness.

              2. Denmark is number 2 on this list.


                Now that I’ve supported T o n y’s postition I’ll take a shower.

            6. We’re spending 40% of GDP across all levels of government.

              Go to the back of the line, grab some more talking points, come back and try again.

            7. “it is required to spend some fucking money”

              “Some” being the operative word.

        2. The generation that was community-minded enough to go to war against Naziism and fascism

          And imported fascism to our own shores as the “Third Way.”

          Remember when the whole world admired Benito Mussolini?

          meanwhile advancing technology and scientific understanding exponentially

          Vague platitudes are vague.

          building a national infrastructure

          Inspired by the Nazi Autobahn.

          and a modern welfare state

          Inspired by the Imperial Germany.

          that was bequeathed to their children and grandchildren,

          You spelled “inflicted” wrong.

          some of whom now think that they deserve everything in life for free.

          Why not when that’s what they’ve been told by the same champions of the welfare/warfare state?

      4. “generation that built this country” = take care of your betters so we can play golf and go on lavish vacations

      5. Same guy (Pfeiffer) who said the American system wasn’t good enough for this president?

    2. Math is a Eurologocentric, plutopatriarchal construct. Also, 2+2=5 when the Party needs it to do so.

      1. “You will learn by degrees, Winston. There is nothing that we could not do. Invisibility, levitation — anything. I could float off this floor like a soap bubble if I wish to.”

      2. 2+2=5 for very large values of 2.

    3. To you, Barack, economics is just something that happens to other people, isn’t it?

    4. You mean the generation that voted themselves all sorts of perks and entitlements, have habitually kicked the can of debt down the road, and saddled proceding generations with an ever-more tyrannical government?

      Where the hell is my tiny violin?

  2. Enduring security and lasting peace do not require perpetual war.

    Have you spoken to our enemies about this?

    1. Maybe if we stop drone-murdering their children?

      1. Sure. Because they loved us right up until we started firing back.

        1. That Islamic terrorism sure was awful before WW-I wasn’t it?

          1. Yes it was. Go ask Chinese Gordan about that. Islamics have been occasionally busting a nut and going after the infidel since there were Muslims.

            In the 15th and 15th Centuries Ottoman slave raiders were so common in Europe that many parts of the French, Italian and Spanish Med coasts were abandoned out of fear.

            1. I;m pretty sure the Europeans are even with the Ottomans when it comes to slavery.

              1. Not really. They imported even more African slaves via the Sahara. You think the middle passage was bad, read about the Arab slave trade in the Sahara sometime.

                1. There’s a reason why the word Slave sounds like Slav… /evilly stroking elaborate Turkish mustache. 😀

    2. What enemies?


    Piers Morgan apparently has a taste for buying women’s shoes. NTTAWWT

    1. I’ve been wondering if he’s just doing an elaborate act. This makes me wonder more.

      1. I wonder if he is Andrew Sullivan’s girl friend?

        1. Maybe he’s buying them for a lady friend?

            1. This is what I choose to believe. But wouldn’t Rex Ryan be buying them for Mark Sanchez?

              1. Hmmmm… I think you might be on to something. I shan’t be surprised if I see a blaring headline on the NYPost’s sports page someday soon.

          1. He didn’t mention one. He seemed to be saying he bought them for himself. NTTAWWT

            1. I assumed they were for his wife, who clearly benefits from the research he needs to do to remain a committed feudalist.

    2. Piers Morgan was born this way.

    3. With a feminine name like Piers why not the ladies shoes to properly accessorize?

      1. What’s feminine about “piers”? They thrust into the ocean–thrust thrust–on thick and sturdy pillars of hard wood. Over the ocean and in it all at once, taming the moon-tides of variable nature.

        1. Not to mention thrusting into the land, like a plowman.

          1. Rooted in the land, gaining purchase to overwhelm the sea.

            1. Rooted in the Antipodean sense?

        2. What’s feminine about them?

          They allow themselves to be tied to phallic vessels spewing salty seamen, and be laden with their stored loads.

  4. Here’s the tl;dr:

    “I pledge another four years of robbing from our grandchildren in order to provide favors and walking-around money to my fervent supporters.”

  5. I love how Very Serious People use euphemisms like “fiscal reality” when basically arguing that we, in fact, can’t care for our elders or invest in the future. We have to throw the elderly into poverty and ensure that our children are ignorant to save the country some cash. A position that is immoral, irrational, and fiscally unsound all at once. Of course anyone still talking about Solyndra doesn’t even earn the title Very Serious Person.

    1. Fuck you and your strawman, too.

      1. If it’s a strawman then say how much you want to raise taxes on the rich by.

        1. LOL. Eat shit.

        2. Sure, as soon as you show us how effectively every dollar taken from taxpayer is spent. $3.7 billion and not a dollar less else seniors will be eating cat food.

          1. Will you idiots stop responding to the sockpuppet? Just fucking ignore it. It hates that.

        3. Yet one more regressive, who doesn’t understand rates vs. revenue, that lavish ed spending hasn’t improved performance in any measurable way, that all the interventions have created this morass, not alleviated. But then, he isn’t here for inquiry, only to pretend to a higher moral plane…yea, piss off.

    2. False dilemma. You’d fit right in at the coronation.

    3. can’t care for our elders or invest in the future


      I love how Very Partisan People present any reduction in benefits as though all benefits will cease, and how Very Progressive People can’t come to the table with a balanced budget that supports their Progressive ideology.

    4. Thanks for demonstrating two of Healy’s points.

    5. Because going bankrupt and debasing the currency would never hurt the poor and the elderly.,

      Fuck you you greedy heartless little bastard. You would make war on the economy and damn millions of people into grinding hopeless poverty in the name of caring for them.

      1. The country can’t go bankrupt. And if you really care about balancing the budget then surely you’re in favor of some tax hikes.

        1. or maybe he’d favor FUCK YOU, CUT SPENDING!

        2. Sure it can’t Tony. It can just debase its currency and make everyone’s savings worthless, which is what is going to happen. Again, ignorant little hateful fucks like you are creating more misery every day. Go die in a fire and help the world.

          1. Stunningly argued.

            1. Because debasing the currency could never happen. Since you are queer and will never have children, I can understand why you don’t care that you are helping to ensure the perpetual poverty and debt of everyone unfortunate enough to be born here in the future. The rest of us, gay or straight, actually care about such things.

              1. Why will our “children and grandchildren” be burdened with the current cost of government. Can’t they just behave like Republicans of today and refuse–ever–to raise their own taxes to pay for the shit they bought?

                And if you care so much about future generations you’d stop being such an ignorant fuck who gets all his thoughts from fat rightwing talking heads and you’d realize that the national debt is not the most serious problem facing future generations by a longshot, and that it’s being taken care of as we speak thanks in part to spending cuts and tax hikes implemented during the Obama administration but mostly to a recovering economy.

                The sad fact is future generations’ welfare depends infinitely more on investing in things like clean energy than it does in the mind-numbing undead idiocy of penny-wise/pound-foolish fiscal hawks.

                1. The sad fact is future generations’ welfare depends infinitely more on investing in things like clean energy than it does in the mind-numbing undead idiocy of penny-wise/pound-foolish fiscal hawks.

                  YEs tony running up debt we will never pay to let rich people rip off the government in the form of “clean energy” is what it is about.

                  Jesus Christ Tony get some new talking points. Even liberals don’t believe that shit anymore. Everyone in the world is going away from green energy because it is expensive and doesn’t work. It is a ticket to poverty. And we let people rip off billions over the last four years and it got us nothing.

                  We have more long term unemployment in this country than at any time since the 1930s. And Obama doesn’t give a shit. He has got his and that is all that matters. Misery poverty and ignorance Tony. That is Obama’s record. Again, own it.

                2. The debt is being taken care of as we speak? So, not only do we no longer have trillion dollar deficits, but we’re actually running surpluses and paying down the outstanding debt?

        3. You never took a course or read a book regarding Logic, have you? Or, if you did, you failed/didn’t understand it, amirite?

          Worst. Sockpuppet. EVAR.

        4. “The country can’t go bankrupt.”

          What is this, the House of Bourbon theory of economics?

          1. Pretty much. People like Tony, or the team of morons who operate the sock puppet, actually believe this shit. They are tired nasty horrible people who are watching everything they believe in fail in front of their eyes.

    6. Right, because if the State doesn’t do it, it doesn’t get done.

      1. That is simply true about some things.

        1. But that’s certainly not because those things don’t need doing. Oh no.

        2. None of the shit obama wants to do.

        3. Oh, please, do list some for us.

          1. Anything meant to be provided universally. As in, without government, some people will be educated, but most won’t. Without government, some people will be able to defend against foreign invaders, but most won’t. Without government, some people will have access to healthcare, but many won’t, especially if you’re poor and/or old.

            It’s odd that the market is so versatile and powerful that it can create all these things–you promise, really!–just as long as the thing that did them first gets out of the way.

            1. ‘cept the government didn’t do education or self-defense or health care first, you dumb fuckbucket. It just strong-armed its way into a virtual monopoly on those things.

              1. Exactly. Like it’s doing to daycare in Quebec. Outta our way! We know best! What a disastrous mess. It’s one thing to squeeze private enterprise out of the equation and OFFER something BETTER but to eliminate it and offer something WORSE is unacceptable to some of us. Not the statist-bots but to the thinkers and doers.

            2. “meant to be provided”

              OH! FAIL! And not even out of the gate. Thanks for trying, dimwit 🙂

              Plus, your examples are in no way proof of your assertion.

              Christ, you’re a waste.

            3. Anything meant to be provided universally.

              “The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics.”
              ? Thomas Sowell

              Once again Tony shows the inverse relationship between one’s understanding of basic economics and the likelihood of being a liberal.

              1. Yet every advanced country manages, somehow, to provide universal education, and all but this one provide universal healthcare, at about half the per capita cost of our healthcare system I might add.

                1. When I was in cooking school one of the chefs was from Germany.

                  He told of their wonderful universal education system where some central planner decides what cog in the socialist machine you should be, and you can go to school for free to be that cog. If you want to do something else you’re completely on your own.

                  He told us of their wonderful universal health care system where you don’t go to the doctor unless you are on death’s door. For example when he was schooling in Germany someone accidentally stabbed themselves in the gut with a filet knife. They put a bandaid on it and kept working. If you’re sick you grin and bear it. You only go to the doctor if you are dying. That’s how they keep costs down.

                  That is what Tony wants for Amerika.

                  1. Tony is looking at one side. The truth is there is ration in universal care – in Canada anyway. It’s only normal. It’s COST-CENTRIC not patient-oriented. It’s also a colossal inefficient mess. But can’t get into it here. Not with Tony. That would be a waste of time.

                2. And all the cool kids smoke, why don’t we do it too? If you went back 80 or so years ago you would find the US had one of the only democratic society’s in the “advanced” world. Should we have ditched it because all the cool countries were authoritarian?

                  Either way, that is a massive simplification of both the US healthcare system and every “advanced” country’s healthcare.

                  1. Should we have ditched it because all the cool countries were authoritarian?

                    Seems to me that we have, thanks to the “There aught to be a law” generation.

            4. Bullshit.

              Most people care about their kids, they’ll pay to have them educated. Hell ask the average parent if they want their kid to go to college and they will tell you how fucking hard they work so their kid can go to a good school. Are you really stupid enough to think public education is the only reason kids are in school? Same goes with healthcare and any of the other bullshit on your bullshit list.

              1. Yes. And what if parents don’t care? Should their children be punished for the rest of their lives for their parents’ refusal or inability to pay for educating them?

                1. According to Tony the only reason why any parent does anything for their children is because of government.

                  Parents feed their children only because the government tells them to.

                  Parents clothe their children only because the government tells them to.

                  Parents bathe their children only because the government tells them to.

                  Without government telling parents to take care of their children, all children would die of neglect and the human race would die off in one generation.

                2. And those 1/1000 scenarios totally legitimizes forcing people to do whatever you want right?

                  Churches and other community organizations would volunteer to setup schools for cheap/free in those cases. As they did before government muscled them out of education.

                  1. Churches and other community organizations would volunteer to setup schools for cheap/free in those cases.

                    You don’t understand. If something isn’t done by government then it will not be done at all.

                    As they did before government muscled them out of education.

                    According to Tony there were no schools before the federal Department of Education. My parents didn’t go to school because schools didn’t exist.

                    1. When I was in elementary school we had this “bring your parent to work day” thing. During the day each student would do a quick Q&A with their respective parent. One of the questions that got asked a lot was “where did you go to elementary school?”. I was pretty surprised by how many parents answered “a catholic school” or “Saint Mary’s” or some other Saint’s. I grew up in a decently affluent area, so obviously those private schools did a fine job of educating people for the “modern” economy without government help.

                    2. …obviously those private schools did a fine job of educating people for the “modern” economy without government help.

                      You are mistaken. None of those people had an education because the federal Department of Education had not yet been created, so no schools could have existed.

                  2. Well I don’t want churches doing what a secular government is perfectly capable of doing. Churches teach bullshit to stupid people. That would not be an improvement.

                    1. So you’d rather poor children do what exactly?

                    2. Tony, my daughter is an altar-girl. Not that I’m overly religious, but I’m sufficiently well-read to consider the overall big picture. Your attack on the Church is uncalled for and under a typical, myopic liberal outlook.

                      I’m proud of her because she’s learning strong, decent values. Values a lot of people are forgetting and ignoring. The Priest isn’t breathing fire on her warning her of gay propaganda. She’s learning things like respect for others, diversity and MANAGE YOUR MONEY.

                      And, get this, IT’S CATHOLIC!

                      Better that than the hopeless stupidity kids are learning in school from brain-dead, indocrtinated teachers. I have to make sure none of her teachers fill her with nonsense lest I deprogram her.

                      As for the Church and its plac in Western history, best you educate yourself because among the many ignorant, authoritarian, pseudo-progressive, garbage you spew, that’s among the top.

                    3. How very liberal and tolerant of you Tony. Wow, I am stunned into silence at the forceful rendering of your view of theology. What an arrogant ass you are. You have no value to add anywhere, which is probably why you worship the government.

                    4. How very liberal and tolerant of you Tony.

                      Tolerant people do not tolerate intolerance. Churches are intolerant.

                      Thus the more intolerant one is of churches and religious institutions, the more tolerant they are in the eyes of their fellow tolerant liberals.

                3. Shit, Tony if parents don’t care how the fuck should it be our problem? Sucks for the kid but really…you’re taking this too far.

                4. What the fuck do you care about children, Tony? They’re the spawn of “breeders”, which on more than one occasion, you have made bigoted statements about.

            5. *As in, without government, some people will be educated, but most won’t.*


              Most people will be educated by their parents in life skills. Farmers would train their children in farming; shopkeepers would train their children to run a profitable shop. We know this, because that has been the case for most of human history.

              What children would not get would be an indoctrination into the cult of state worship.

              1. Or how to make a living in a modern economy.

                1. Or how to take on non-dischargable debt to major in some worthless B.A. program.

                2. I know this is probably shocking news to you, but their are people out their who are doing essentially the same job as their grandfathers did. They are making a perfectly fine living in the “modern” economy.

                  1. gee, my old man only has a HS degree but yet managed to retire at age 55 to go live on a beach for the rest of his life. All without government intervention. And he came from a poor, poor family with eight kids.

        4. Like corporate welfare! How much should we raise taxes on the Wrong Rich so we can redistribute it to the Rich Rich under the guise of helping the elderly/teh childrenzz/etc.?

    7. Just go fuck yourself in your earhole, Krugman. And come up with some new catchphrases while you’re at it.

    8. I love how Very Serious People use euphemisms like “fiscal reality” when basically arguing that we, in fact, can’t care for our elders

      Oh look, Tony w/spaces has gone and confused “government” with “philanthropy.” It’s a common mistake idiots make.

      Tony /wpsaces, you’re the worst sockpuppet ever.

    9. At one time we wished you’d finally grow-up. Then we realized you’re just plain stupid. And stupid can’t be fixed.

    10. I love how people like Tony pretend that social security actually helps the poor instead of taking money from the poor (young) the the relatively rich (old). Oh no wait, I DON’T love that because that atrocious lie is ruining this country and my generation.

      1. *to give to the relatively rich

      2. Tony doesn’t want to help anyone. He is a liberal. They get sexual pleasure from misery.

      3. Just stop and think about why the old are defined as “relatively rich.” Perhaps you might even come to understand just how this talking point is used to confuse the matter. Hint: they tend to own houses (counted as wealth), and have had decades to save money.

        That doesn’t mean there are virtually no old people who depend on SS for their very existence, which is the unstated (ridiculous) argument.

        1. No one is arguing their are not people who depend on SS for necessities. But that is not the average social security recipient. I used to work in a convenience store that sold lottery tickets. I would dread working at the beginning of the month because the store would get very busy with older people buying tons of lottery tickets. I asked my boss once why it got so busy at the beginning of the month. His answer “because social security checks arrive.”.

        2. Single person making $200k = Evil Billionaire on Leftist Scale of Loathsomeness.

          Absolution given to Evil Rich People who contribute only to Team Blue, that is.

    11. Tony, why do you waste your talents on us, when they would be so much better used at Daily Kos, which is where that post sounds like it comes from?

  6. “ensure that our children are ignorant to save the country some cash”

    Yeah, all the hundreds of millions we’ve spent on education aren’t working well enough. We obviously need to spend more!

  7. And still nothing on Reason about Harry Reid trying to destroy the filibuster today. Interesting.

    1. I don’t get it. Why do people cry when reason doesn’t present them with the story they want?

      1. I’m still pissed at their refusal to call Gingrich “Newcular Titties.”

        1. No, fuck you, cut spending!

          That would be not-quite-as-awesome a name, but it would be great at the DMV.

          “Mr. No Fuck You Cut Spending? You license is ready…have a nice day!”

          1. I was saddened that Obama didn’t take my advice and say that during his speech.

            1. He didn’t? Well, I guess I’m not surprised, really.

              1. He sounded receptive to the idea on the phone.

                1. Oh, yeah, he leads on ALL the girls…then…nothing.

                  Bastard. He’s a cad, really.

                  1. I think he really called to get my picks for the NFL playoffs. I gave him the right winners for the conference titles, but he’ll only clean up if my 49ers pick is correct.

      2. $park?? Have you ever seen a cosmotarian drink a glass of water?

        1. It’s because of the fluoride, isn’t it?

        2. I don’t think I’ve even seen a cosmotarian.

          (Sorry, your reference is one that I am not familiar with other than that it is a reference to something.)

            1. Why is Inspector Clouseau speaking with a strange voice?

              1. Sellers was originally supposed to play the Slim Pickins role as well, but turned it down because he didn’t think he could do a credible Texan accent.

          1. I saw a cosmotarian drinking a pi?a colada at Trader Vic’s. His hair was perfect.

            1. That was JW, dude.

              1. Sure looked like a cosmotarian, though.

          2. If you take me to a bar you can see cosmos go into a libertarian

      3. Not people. Just Tulpy-poo.

        1. And John, and Randian … wait, I see it now. Nevermind, carry on.

      4. I’m not crying. Just noticing.

        1. Just noticing. Out loud.

    2. He was for the filibuster before he was against it.

      I hope this fails.

    3. Oh stop. Do you see who’s really posting today? Nobody. Just mostly syndicated articles.

      1. Well, the regulars are hung over from all the cosmotarian? inaugural after parties, no doubt.

        1. Bearded Nick Gillespie Tony is commenting up a storm.

      2. Don’t be sourcist.

        1. +1 new word

      3. Uh, several writers have already taken the opportunity to congratulate BO for being so libertarian on gay issues.

        1. Tell, what actual steps has Obama taken to advance gay rights again?

          1. Tell me. Or anyone else, I guess.

          2. I think you’re asking the wrong person. Maybe you should read Welch and Gillespie on the subject with their blog posts today, which oddly ignored the Dem Newspeak on the filiburster issue.

            1. It was a rhetorical question, because jack and shit are words that apply to Obama’s actions in this field, as with most things. He speaks, and the media fawns.

              1. He doesn’t have to worry about re-election now, Pro’L Dib. Like he infamously said to Premier Medvedev: “After this election I’ll be much more flexible.”

                1. Which is why the House must simply say no to anything other than repeals and spending cuts. No.

                  1. They are too weak, Pro’L Dib. Cheap suits, all of them.

                    Rousseau won.-(

          3. He stopped defending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” after its defeat in court was absolutely certain.

            Barry luvs teh gheys!

            1. That’s the only thing I could think of, and, as you note, that’s incredibly weak sauce.

              He openly took the opposite position right up until he freed the gays from slavery or whatever.

  8. A British paper just broke the story that Beyonce lip synced her performance. So the whole event just becomes more and more fake.

    1. Since when did anyone think Beyonce can sing or has any talent?

      1. She’s got two big talents.

        1. But her voice ain’t one.

    2. As Janet Jackson became iconic for a particular performance, Beyonce is now iconic for the Obama administration, due to her LACK of performance.

      People went all the way to the Capitol Mall to experience events in person. They stood out in the cold in order to have bragging rights to say: “I was there,” “I saw that.” Someday, some of them perhaps thought, they would be watching Goldmember with companions and would say to them, “Y’know, I saw her sing at President Obama’s 2nd Inauguration.” But of course, they did not, and now they know that the “real” Beyonce is no more likely to be authentic than the characters she plays onscreen. Just as the real Obama is no more authentic than the character he has recently played.

  9. Inauguration summary: Beyonce’s performance was faked lip-synching; Lupe Fiasco tossed out for getting real.

  10. Might I recommend, as a post-inaugural hangover cure, my new e-book, False Idol? In it, I suggest that “Obama’s failure might, to borrow one of the president’s favorite phrases, serve as a ‘teachable moment,’ encouraging Americans to better align our expectations with reality.”

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.