In the past, South Carolina has served as a tie breaker for the winner of the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary.

With the expectation that Ron Paul won’t win the next one, the tie breaker challenge now moves to Florida.

I would really like to think the White House strategists are imbibing in a whole buncha plop plop fizz fizz right now.

All of that work they’ve done to put their candidate in the spotlight over the last three years has started to deconstruct.

Understand of course the White House backed candidate I’m talking about would be one Mitt Romney. They would love to run a campaign against him with the expectation they would wipe the floor with his flip floppery right into a second term.

I honestly believe the White House had additional motives in mind when they called Mitt’s crew in a few years ago to discuss the individual mandate and the implementation of Obamacare.

But now, the tide has turned in an interesting manner. Newt and his Super PAC went all apeshit on Romney this month demonizing the venture capitalism which has put a good chunk of change in Romney’s pocket.

It would almost seem to be another execution of Operation Chaos, which was the effort used during the 2008 primaries to keep things going in hopes of vetting out the eventual winner or that particular race.  Here, the thought is to put Mitt under more scrutiny.

Meanwhile, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul remain irrelevant in this race, regardless of their respective strengths.

Vote Responsibly Y’all.

That’s right. TharpSter watched Meryl Streep on the big screen.

I’m pretty sure my virginity is still intact where seeing the daminozide princess on the big screen is concerned.

Holy cow. Where did that 20 year old reference to Streep’s activism come from?

What are we doing to our children?

What a buncha Streep.

Not to be confused with Buncha Crunch. That stuff was pretty good and gave me the sugar surge I perceived I needed to watch a Streep flick on the silver screen.

Big picture (pun possibly intended), the film was good. In essence , it followed the public / political career of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

Without putting tongue in cheek, I can honestly say she was quite a sweetheart.

My personal knowledge of Thatcher came on at a time when I was but a teenager and relatively unschooled in the ways of a conservative. I knew she had something in those pearls she always wore, but I didn’t know or fully understand what it was at the time.

It was interesting for me to sit there and watch her deal with the issues of her time; that being deficit spending, class warfare, unionized labor, and terrorism. As I watched it, I marveled at the fact that history is quite insistent on repeating itself.

Thatcher’s role as a “statesman” portrayed in this film was enough to give any conservative worth their salt not only a platform to stand on, but also a Chris Matthews-like tingle up the leg. It also drove home the fact that being a bold conservative is the best type of conservative to be.

Sadly, there were two things I didn’t like about being in that theater.

First of all, the film spent a good portion of it’s time on the life of Thatcher after the passing of her husband (played by that guy who played Slughorn in the Harry Potter flicks). Her handlers strive to keep her firmly ensconced in the blue pill world of the matrix, and keep the issues of the day out of her hands. At the same time, Thatcher is continually haunted by the memory of her late husband. She converses with him often, and ultimately must get past his memory in order to remove his clothing and other belongings from her home.

That part sucked and I’ll tell you why.

The film is called The Iron Lady. It’s about the first female Prime Minister of Great Britain. She did some amazing things in her tenure and partnered with Reagan in bringing an end to the Cold War. If I really wanted to watch a movie about the ravages of what I’m assuming is Alzheimer’s or some other dementia, I would have requested two tickets to see “Thatcher: The Post Iron Lady Years”.

Generally speaking, I consider the portrayal of any public figure in their waning years as a mere shadow of their former selves to be in poor taste.

It just ain’t right.

I don’t know the motivation behind it where Thatcher is concerned, so I can only guess why producers did it in The Iron Lady.

I mentioned two things I didn’t like.

The other item which caused my pyloric valve to spaz a little was a large lobby display of a movie coming out later this year.

I won’t give a whole lot of detail save for three items:

1. 21 Jump Street
2. Johah Hill
3. Johnny Depp – cameo

What a buncha Streep.

Of course the trailer looks cool.  That’s what trailers are supposed to do.  Put butts in theaters to see what usually boils down to 90 to 120 minutes of squirrels bumpin’ uglies in a cage; cinematic quality be damned.

In this particular trailer, the audience is dealt a sample of the  level of evil which resides in this episode’s bad guy.  His name is Bane.

Bane appears to be a badass in this movie.

Item #2 – The establishment choice for the Republican nomination this year has a stint of venture capitalism on his resume.  When Bain Capital was formed, Mitt Romney was the head honcho.  I haven’t done enough personal research on them, and anything I’ve seen or heard about them comes from Romney critics.

I’m reserving judgment until I have balanced information.  Generally speaking, any entity which endeavors to grow business without the use of taxpayer funded subsidies can’t be all that bad.    Those of you who may trumpet the mantra that greed is evil are doing nothing but quoting speaking points without the benefit of critical thought and analysis.

Just sayin’.

This summer, we will seen Bane on the big screen and what could most likely be a Romney nomination.

Is there any doubt in your mind that we are just a matter of months away from Mitt Romney being compared to a Batman bad guy?

Plain, clear and simple. Give me substantive reason(s) as to why the man has earned your desire to dangle a chad for him. Don’t tell me you’re voting against the guys on the other side. Tell why you will vote FOR Barack Obama.

This next question goes out to those who hold the generic Republican mindset that Mitt Romney is the only guy that can beat Obama.

Once again, I’m looking for substantive reasons why he’s a better bet than those who aren’t selected by the establishment.

Your turn.

Go.

“Hate” is a strong word, but so is “floccinauccinihilipilification”, which pretty much describes to a “t” (and several other letters), what that thing meant to me.

For five years, the supposed light source in our dining room has been the very epitome of the bane of my existence.  Never once in all or that time was I able to successfully get five bulbs to burn at one time in that thing.  That’s regardless of whether it was the traditional and maligned incandescent bulb which Edison gave us, or the dumbass yogurt covered curly fry of a CFL that junk science and the Pelosi/Reid Congress gave us.  In my opinion, the absolute dumbest thing that W. ever did was sign that offal laden piece of crap into law.

But now, ladies and gentlemen, that low lux piece of flotsam which littered my vaulted 12 ft. ceiling has been removed and replaced with a ceiling fan that is guaranteed to illuminate the darkest recesses within the family room.

The guilty party which no longer remains suspended from the vaulted ceiling now resides in pieces in the garage. It will transition to the trash shortly.

Good riddance.

Today, ladies and gentlemen, is the last day of my staycation.

On a positive note, the debutantes and crackheads who represent Dallas in the NFL were sent home last night in a loss to the Giants.

It’s a happy trade off.

Short of calling criticizers of Herman Cain racists, I haven’t posted a whole lot on politics lately. It’s a shame that the captain of 999 had to get out. Looking back on the events which forced him out, what ever happened? We haven’t heard anything else about the crop of accusers who kinda came forward, but really didn’t. In summary, I think it was a bag of dirty tricks which caused his unfortunate exit.

At this writing, the Iowa caucuses happen tomorrow. Right now, the two leaders in the polls represent the epitome of doosh baggery in my book. Whereas I would vote for either of them over the incumbent, neither of them are my first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, or even seventh choice to run in the general election. At the same time, the news is a buzz about Donald Trump getting ready to make an independent run if the GOP nominates the wrong person.

Trump is smart, and should know that third party candidates split the vote in favor of the perceived bad guy.  Perot split the conservative vote in 92 and Nadar split the liberal one in 2000.

It does create an interesting scenario though. In the event that Ron Paul wins the nomination, Trump could very well provide a viable alternative to conservatives who find Paul’s isolationist stand to be an unpalatable position just to the left of Obama.

Speaking of Obama, what exactly is he running on? His record over the last three years has been abysmal at best. The only thing that really seems to draw him support among his sycophants and other minions is the continued presence of the creepy cult of personality in which Obama is deeply ensconced.

It would seem the man is just sitting back, drinking his White House brewed beer as he waits with the intent of allowing what the GOP has to offer to self immolate.

Overall, it’s not a very pretty picture.

At least Dallas is out of the running in the playoffs this year.

Vote Responsibly Y’all.

Howdy y’all.

I just want to drop a note to a select group of people who see it fit to be critical of Herman Cain.

You know who you are.

The whole premise of 999 doesn’t add up to you.

He’s too blunt.

He’s too direct.

The ad of his campaign manager and his ability to unashamedly smoke a cigarette while on camera just drives you nuts.

You’re resting your laurels on the claims reported by the Politico which accuses the candidate of inappropriate behavior in no certain terms.

Furthermore, you’re resting you’re laurels on another woman who’s come forward under the legal representation of Gloria Allred with even more accusations of harassment. 

Are we clear?

You know who you are?

Good.

You’re critical of one of the front runners in the Republican primary.

Based on your criticism, I only have one thing to say.

You’re a racist.

Vote Responsibly Y’all.

I know, that’s pretty shocking.  As your favorite blogger on the worldwide web, it would only seem fitting that I view the aimless meandering of others around the blogosphere to be well below my station.

Rest assured that I don’t hold those views, as I’ve done my own share of aimless meandering.

The first three paragraphs of this piece serve as a perfect example.

Regardless, I do read the blogs of others for a multitude of reasons for which I won’t waste your time at this point discussing.

You’re welcome.

Last week I read a blog by Scott Adams. If you don’t recognize the name right off, Adams is the creator of the comic strip Dilbert.

The thing about Scott’s writing is that it tends to reveal a certain sarcastic insight on things which I tend to appreciate.

I’ll pause to allow you to ponder that.

So back to blog.  In the article, Adams discussed the fact that parties across the political spectrum have expressed a desire for a Constitutional Convention.  Adams supports such a measure based on the basement dwelling poll numbers which Congress currently enjoys.  The low number serves as a key indicator to Adams that government is broken.

As such, Adams subsequently declares himself the leader of the transitional government, and calls for the creation of a website to help facilitate the transition.

Congress has low approval numbers.  This means government is broken.  We need a Constitutional Convention.

*ahem*

Bullshit.

How’s that for being the soul of wit?

Allow me to address Mr. Adams directly. For those of you who I’m not addressing, feel free to follow along.

Mr. Adams, has it occurred to you that the biggest problem our county has right now is largely resultant of government overstepping the bounds established for it BY the Constitution?

Yes, government is broken.  You can’t look to replace the rule book when the players refuse to play by the rules. Instead, you replace the players with ones who will play by the rules.

Good luck with your little website.

Vote Responsibly Y’all.

You do know what a TLA is, don’t you?

That’s right. It’s a Three Letter Acronym.  I’ll give you moment to muse over the whimsy of that term.

ABO stands for Anyone But Obama.

Now certainly that’s been my stand since the 2008 campaign.  Let me assure you that back then, I didn’t vote “for” McCain as much as I voted “against” Obama.

If I have anything to do with it next year, I can assure you that those of us on the right will actually have someone to vote “for” next year.

I’m not interested in voting for someone who is willing to work with or partake in compromise with those on the left.  At this point in the life of America, the tenets of the liberal agenda are considerably less palatable than self trephination.

I believe in free market capitalism, and that a government that governs least governs best.  I subscribe to the idea of American exceptionalism.  Why on God’s green earth would I consider excessive confiscatory taxation and over bearing regulation as an element to accept in order to get my way?

I won’t.

Put very simply, the likes of John Huntsman, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Perry need to get off the stage.  By the time the Texas primary rolls around, I expect that two of these doosh bags will still be relevant contenders in this race.  At that point, I’m sure I’ll vote with one hand and hold my nose with the other.

You are familiar with my definition of a doosh bag aren’t you?  I typically assign this term to those whose verbal blather or general idea on the way things work fail to hold water.

The five candidates I’ve listed above have obtained a station of doosh bag in my book.  I could go into extreme detail as to why, but I won’t.  It’s all right there in front of you.  You don’t need any additional insight from me to identify where these guys posses their weaknesses.  I just don’t believe the stands these candidates have taken on various issues are a direct 180 degree turn from that of the incumbent they will run against.

They need to step aside and allow the electorate to continue the vetting process for the remaining candidates.  A few more will shake out in the process, and we will then have a candidate who isn’t the some RINO mudblood who fails to excite the base.

If the Republicans can do that this time, perhaps we can realize the premise of hope and change which was promised a few years ago.

Just a thought.

Vote Responsibly Y’all.

Ironically enough I’m about to quote a Bible verse.  One of the things I’ve learned from the Bible is that there’s nothing new under the sun.  Yet still, I offer the following thoughts and ponderings under the premise that maybe, just maybe no one has thought of it.

Alright gang, get your Bible out.  What version?  Don’t care.

Look at Matthew 19:16-21  (The following text is from the NKJV)

16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, “Good[e] Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?”
17 So He said to him, “Why do you call Me good?[f] No one is good but One, that is, God.[g] But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
18 He said to Him, “Which ones?”
Jesus said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness,’ 19 ‘Honor your father and your mother,’[h] and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’”[i]
20 The young man said to Him, “All these things I have kept from my youth.[j] What do I still lack?”
21 Jesus said to him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

Pasted from <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19-20&version=NKJV>

You do see where I’m going with this don’t you?

Here in the information age, our lexicon perpetually changes at the speed of political correctivity. Case in point, let’s discuss the term “balanced approach”.  At the beginning of the year, ladies and gentlemen, that term carried a completely different meaning than it does today.  Back then, it really wasn’t any more than a figure of speech which could be attributed to just about anything.

Nowadays (8 months later), it means tax hikes for the rich.

I don’t really have to tell you how the term took on that meaning in just a matter of months do I?  I would assume that by now you’re familiar with the power of the bully pulpit which is strategically and frequently wielded by TOTUS & The Symbiant.  Please don’t make me do any further level setting here.  I’m trying to be brief.

Anyway, the general consensus among the White House, the Democrats in Congress, and the left wing talking heads in the media is that in order for this great country of ours to solve it’s great debt woes, it must bite the bullet by making an already excessive progressive tax code more *ahem* progressive.  In the English to PC / PC to English dictionary, that means they want to make the rich pay more taxes.

I gotta tell you.  I would have never, ever, seen that one coming from any of the aforementioned savants.

Just to drive their point home, they get some of the rich souls among their ideology to come out in favor of such a measure.  You know who I’m talking about.  The President himself has a self serving, yet eloquent way of talking about it when he discusses the Bush tax cuts.  “People like me didn’t request a tax cut…….”

Hypocritical weasels.  Every last one of them.

Of course, the best response to these people is the one where they are subsequently challenged to go ahead and pay more to the IRS.  No one is stopping them.  We’ve heard that one by now, haven’t we?  Of course.  It’s nothing new.

What  I would really, really, like to see is one of these guilty conscious do-gooders actually respond to the challenge and voluntarily pony up a big wad of cash to Uncle Sam in the name of paying their fair share.

Click the picture to ask the IRS how to pay more taxes

Have you ever tried to pay extra money to the IRS?  Certainly IRS Form 1040 has a box for you to check if you want to donate $3 to Presidential campaigns which buy buses and tour the midwest touting the eminent introduction of some no bang for the buck jobs program which is documented on a 2 inch square Post-It Note in someone’s middle desk drawer.  Those of us who have filed taxes on something other than a magic slate (the predecessor to the tablet PC) have seen that box plenty of times and wondered if it would up our tax bill or not.  At the same time, we’ve never seen a similar box asking for us to voluntarily pay more than what’s already being confiscated from us.

When was the last time you saw a headline either here on the internet  or in a newspaper reporting that some fat cat Wall Street type voluntarily paid extra taxes?  More often or not, you typically see reports of the well-to-do crowd giving butt loads of money to chosen charities.  Ted Turner did it.  The Facebook guy did it.  Even the medias favorite rich guy who wants to pay more taxes has done it.

We could go into the suggested reasons as to why they gave to certain charities instead of the government.  That of course would reveal certain hypocrisies which would subsequently cast the ideologies of said individuals in a negative light.  I’ll do that some other time.

Regardless, one of the stated goals of a more progressiver (that’s a word, you saw it here first) tax code is to turn around and give it to the poor.  Easy as that.  It would seem that the rich guys who speak up about the need for the rich to pay more taxes would seek to get as much of their wealth to the poor via taxation in order to obtain a certain level of perfection.  Don’t you think?

But of course, I left out verse 22 from the passage in Matthew I quoted before.  It seems to add a certain level of clarity to the discussion.