All that hopey, changey stuff? Forget it. Never was, never will be.
Outgoing Speaker Nancy Pelosi averted a Wednesday showdown between her top two lieutenants by announcing that she will create a new post for Majority Whip James E. Clyburn (D-S.C.), who was expected to lose a race for minority whip to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
That may help Pelosi avoid a revolt from black lawmakers anxious to make sure that Clyburn, the highest-ranking African American in Congress, isn't booted from the leadership or demoted in rank — but there are no specifics about his title, the size of his staff or the responsibilities of the new job, and his camp has yet to signal to CBC members whether he is satisfied with the arrangement. Moreover, the deal does little to alleviate the frustrations of a scattered but sizable set of junior Democrats who believe Pelosi and her senior allies exercise too much control over caucus structures, including campaign, policy and committee-assignment apparatuses. Those lawmakers are working to rewrite internal rules to take power away from the septuagenarians who run the party.
The battle for minority whip was developing into quite a mess. The Congressional Black Caucus were signed on for Clyburn while the established old lions of the party were backing Hoyer. It was getting into racial accusations and that's not good for the party that claims to be all about being a home for black voters. Especially since Hoyer doesn't have a very close relationship with Pelosi - usually seen as a rivalry for power.
Instead, the party that lost power in a very big way in the House of Representatives has chosen to allow those who ran it off the cliff to remain in control. This status quo extends into creating a new post spot, tailor made for Clyburn so as not to anger the black base of the party - crucial for Democratic electorate victories.
The old lions have to contend with a growing, restless younger population of elected representatives. Nancy Pelosi refuses to step aside gracefully, desperately clutching to her power position and inciting discontent. To say she is in complete denial of her role in the demise of the Democratic majority in the House is an understatement. She claims it was solely the unemployment numbers.
"The reason the election results are what they are is because we have 9-1/2 percent unemployment in our country. We didn't lose the election because of me," Pelosi told National Public Radio on Friday. "The reason they had to try to take me down is because I've been effective in fighting the special interests in Washington, D.C. I'm also the most significant attractor of support for the Democrats. So I'm not looking back on this. [Democratic colleagues] asked me to run. I'm running. And again, our members understand they made me target because I'm effective."
And, yes, she actually says she fights the 'special interests' so effectively that she should remain in power. This is the same woman who threw a party last week for special interest groups vital to Democratic victories. She refused to allow the press into the gathering. She held it in a taxpayer funded federal building and kept the guest list secret. This is the same woman who declared, upon elevation to the Speaker of the House, that she would 'drain the swamps' of corruption, and of lobbyists' control over Congress.
Irony, much, Madame Speaker? It will be interesting to watch how long the up and coming Democratic politicians will allow Pelosi's hypocrisy to continue.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Saturday, November 13, 2010
Obama Extravagances Out of Touch With Economy
Some are making the case for the scaling back of the extravagances of the high living Obamas. It is acknowledged that the original costs associated with the First Couple's grand ten day adventure to India, Indonesia and South Korea for trade and outreach along the way to the G20 conference. Then it was off to Japan, as utter failure overseas follows the First Couple.
No new trade agreement signed in South Korea. Michelle inappropriately touches yet another high profile person in a receiving line. The traveling media swoons over the wardrobe of the First Lady when regular Americans mock her taste in fashion and how she looks in her choices.
Maybe some of the more extravagant touches should be scaled back a bit - taxpayer funded, of course - until everyone gets the hang of it. Inexperience shows and it is embarrassing. Our nation still struggles with high unemployment numbers and an economy stuck in neutral.
Apparently, the news that the entourage would be accompanied by 34 warships was a rumor, while the story that the president took over the entire Taj Mahal Palace Hotel was not. And while the White House denies that the trip will cost American taxpayers $200 million a day, officials have refused to reveal the total cost, claiming such information is confidential. The point really is not the exact figure. The point is that the citizens (and the world) not only believe the obscene $2-billion estimate, but they have also come to expect this from the Obamas.
Why isn't the total cost being released? Isn't this suppose to be the most transparent administration ever? Ever.
Not begrudging the President and his family their vacations. Not suggesting that they should not represent our country at world economic summits. It would be prudent, however, for someone around the First Couple to teach them a bit about coping with public perception. It is well understood by this time in his first term that Barack Obama has failed in keeping his promise to rise above street level Chicago politics in his governing style. It is well understood the basic hypocrisy in lifestyle from this First Couple - whether it is eating burgers and fries at every opportunity as he continues his smoking habit while Michelle lectures the nation and its restaurant owners on good nutrition, or the weekly parties with celebrities and entertainment at the White House - as they insist everyone else do the hard work of tightening our belts and not expecting to continue on with our own good lives.
And as the writer of the referenced article points out, worst of all is that no one was shocked by the extravagances first floated in reports of the latest trip abroad. It has come to be expected.
No new trade agreement signed in South Korea. Michelle inappropriately touches yet another high profile person in a receiving line. The traveling media swoons over the wardrobe of the First Lady when regular Americans mock her taste in fashion and how she looks in her choices.
Maybe some of the more extravagant touches should be scaled back a bit - taxpayer funded, of course - until everyone gets the hang of it. Inexperience shows and it is embarrassing. Our nation still struggles with high unemployment numbers and an economy stuck in neutral.
Apparently, the news that the entourage would be accompanied by 34 warships was a rumor, while the story that the president took over the entire Taj Mahal Palace Hotel was not. And while the White House denies that the trip will cost American taxpayers $200 million a day, officials have refused to reveal the total cost, claiming such information is confidential. The point really is not the exact figure. The point is that the citizens (and the world) not only believe the obscene $2-billion estimate, but they have also come to expect this from the Obamas.
Why isn't the total cost being released? Isn't this suppose to be the most transparent administration ever? Ever.
Not begrudging the President and his family their vacations. Not suggesting that they should not represent our country at world economic summits. It would be prudent, however, for someone around the First Couple to teach them a bit about coping with public perception. It is well understood by this time in his first term that Barack Obama has failed in keeping his promise to rise above street level Chicago politics in his governing style. It is well understood the basic hypocrisy in lifestyle from this First Couple - whether it is eating burgers and fries at every opportunity as he continues his smoking habit while Michelle lectures the nation and its restaurant owners on good nutrition, or the weekly parties with celebrities and entertainment at the White House - as they insist everyone else do the hard work of tightening our belts and not expecting to continue on with our own good lives.
And as the writer of the referenced article points out, worst of all is that no one was shocked by the extravagances first floated in reports of the latest trip abroad. It has come to be expected.
The GOP As Party Of No Meme
What will the narrative be for the newly elected majority party of the House of Representatives now that the GOP has won it? Previously, we were told that the GOP was solely interested in being the Party of No. We were told it was pure politics. We were told that the GOP never bothered to put forward their ideas to solve the problems of the nation.
This would like to plant the seed of cynicism in the reader that the GOP met behind closed doors - as the administration does - and decided to be the Party of No. Remember that both AP and Yahoo news outlets lean strongly left in reporting narratives.
"By sticking together in principled opposition to policies we viewed as harmful, we made it perfectly clear to the American people where we stood. And we gave voters a real choice," said Mitch McConnell, the Senate's GOP leader from Kentucky. "As Democrats governed left, Republicans stood together time and again, making the case for conservative alternatives."
I would argue that the party of no meme is simply politics at a basic level. That is what the minority does, if it is doing its job - they oppose the majority. The difference this time around was that the groundswell of Tea Party support made the job of Republicans in Congress far easier than in recent years. With the public support out there at town hall meetings and political rallies, etc., GOP elected officials realized that the public was fed up and expected them to do the work they were sent to do. They became the Party of Hell, No!, not just No.
I don't recall the news media's reporting on the efforts of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as the leaders of the Party of No when George W. Bush was President. Funny. Back then it was normal behavior. Now it is so novel that it must be reported on, it must be cast as nefarious behavior. Those evil Republicans, they are scheming in meetings to bring forward their own agenda!
Republicans have put forth idea after idea but they are either ignored or ridiculed by the party in power. The President, who ran on the premise of bi-partisanship, even flatly told the GOP - John McCain in particular - during the lone summit held for both parties to work together on health care reform ideas that he won the election. I know McCain must have been appreciative for the news flash. I served to show how petty and vain the president is in the process.
The newly-elected GOP majority in the House of Representatives will be a counterbalance to the runaway arrogance living in the halls of power in Washington, D.C. The new battle is for 2012.
This would like to plant the seed of cynicism in the reader that the GOP met behind closed doors - as the administration does - and decided to be the Party of No. Remember that both AP and Yahoo news outlets lean strongly left in reporting narratives.
"By sticking together in principled opposition to policies we viewed as harmful, we made it perfectly clear to the American people where we stood. And we gave voters a real choice," said Mitch McConnell, the Senate's GOP leader from Kentucky. "As Democrats governed left, Republicans stood together time and again, making the case for conservative alternatives."
I would argue that the party of no meme is simply politics at a basic level. That is what the minority does, if it is doing its job - they oppose the majority. The difference this time around was that the groundswell of Tea Party support made the job of Republicans in Congress far easier than in recent years. With the public support out there at town hall meetings and political rallies, etc., GOP elected officials realized that the public was fed up and expected them to do the work they were sent to do. They became the Party of Hell, No!, not just No.
I don't recall the news media's reporting on the efforts of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as the leaders of the Party of No when George W. Bush was President. Funny. Back then it was normal behavior. Now it is so novel that it must be reported on, it must be cast as nefarious behavior. Those evil Republicans, they are scheming in meetings to bring forward their own agenda!
Republicans have put forth idea after idea but they are either ignored or ridiculed by the party in power. The President, who ran on the premise of bi-partisanship, even flatly told the GOP - John McCain in particular - during the lone summit held for both parties to work together on health care reform ideas that he won the election. I know McCain must have been appreciative for the news flash. I served to show how petty and vain the president is in the process.
The newly-elected GOP majority in the House of Representatives will be a counterbalance to the runaway arrogance living in the halls of power in Washington, D.C. The new battle is for 2012.
Obama Freeze On White House Salaries All Smoke and Mirrors
Is it ok for the President to deliberately mislead the American people on faux belt tightening actions concerning salaries and raises at the White House? And why did it take so long for anyone to notice yet another bogus pledge from this administration, in general and this President, in particular? Whom do we thank for some forced White House transparency about his story? Gawker. Yes, Gawker.
Earlier this week, USA Today published an analysis of the federal workforce showing that it pays to work for the government: The number of feds earning more than $150,000 per year has increased tenfold since 2005, and the number earning above $180,000 has increased twentyfold. That prompted us to take a look at White House salaries, and it turns out that working for Barack Obama is not a bad gig.
Obama famously instituted a salary freeze for all White House staffers earning more than $100,000 on his first day in office because "during this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington."
But there wasn't a lot of belt-tightening for the rest of the staff: We crunched the numbers and found that, of the 344 White House employees who were listed on the payroll in both White House's 2009 and 2010 salary reports, 253—or 74%—got raises in 2010. And among that lucky overwhelming majority, the average raise was 9%. And plenty of people making more than $100,000 a year did get a raise as long as a title change came with it.
Just change the job title. The raises followed. Smoke and mirrors, alive and well with Team Obama. Anyone else insulted just a bit by this arrogance and deception? To be fair, the White House has a comment:
Nick Shapiro, the charming young man from the White House who offered comment for this story—and got an $18,000 raise last year offered this response:
White House raises on average were 3% not the inaccurately reported 9%. People who got entirely new jobs, not uncommon after the first year of a new administration got new salaries, which were on average 6% higher than the salary of their previous job. In fact, on his first day in office, President Obama instituted a pay freeze for all staff making over $100k, and none of these folks received any raise whatsoever. In addition, in the President's FY 2011 budget he included a pay freeze for all senior political appointees across the entire Administration. It is not uncommon in the second year of a new administration for many low level staffers to change positions and move up the ranks to hold new jobs with increased responsibilities. President Obama is committed to continuing to reduce costs in government while providing high-quality services to the American people.
Everyone feel better now? Yeah, me neither.
Earlier this week, USA Today published an analysis of the federal workforce showing that it pays to work for the government: The number of feds earning more than $150,000 per year has increased tenfold since 2005, and the number earning above $180,000 has increased twentyfold. That prompted us to take a look at White House salaries, and it turns out that working for Barack Obama is not a bad gig.
Obama famously instituted a salary freeze for all White House staffers earning more than $100,000 on his first day in office because "during this period of economic emergency, families are tightening their belts, and so should Washington."
But there wasn't a lot of belt-tightening for the rest of the staff: We crunched the numbers and found that, of the 344 White House employees who were listed on the payroll in both White House's 2009 and 2010 salary reports, 253—or 74%—got raises in 2010. And among that lucky overwhelming majority, the average raise was 9%. And plenty of people making more than $100,000 a year did get a raise as long as a title change came with it.
Just change the job title. The raises followed. Smoke and mirrors, alive and well with Team Obama. Anyone else insulted just a bit by this arrogance and deception? To be fair, the White House has a comment:
Nick Shapiro, the charming young man from the White House who offered comment for this story—and got an $18,000 raise last year offered this response:
White House raises on average were 3% not the inaccurately reported 9%. People who got entirely new jobs, not uncommon after the first year of a new administration got new salaries, which were on average 6% higher than the salary of their previous job. In fact, on his first day in office, President Obama instituted a pay freeze for all staff making over $100k, and none of these folks received any raise whatsoever. In addition, in the President's FY 2011 budget he included a pay freeze for all senior political appointees across the entire Administration. It is not uncommon in the second year of a new administration for many low level staffers to change positions and move up the ranks to hold new jobs with increased responsibilities. President Obama is committed to continuing to reduce costs in government while providing high-quality services to the American people.
Everyone feel better now? Yeah, me neither.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Waiting For Release of Aung San Suu Kyi
The world awaits verification on an act of freedom. It is reported that within a matter of hours, Aung San Suu Kyi may be a free woman. Burma's military has held her prisoner in her own home and she has become a symbol for freedom of speech and the desire for democratic reform within oppressive societies.
The much anticipated release overshadows the sham election recently held in Burma.
Speculation surrounding Aung San Suu Kyi, her impending release and just how much freedom she will be allowed, has overshadowed the emerging results of Burma's first general election in 20 years, held last Sunday.
While no official declaration has been made, the military junta appears to have claimed an overwhelming victory for its own party, a result that has surprised no one.
The Union Solidarity and Development Party – bankrolled by military largesse and stacked with generals who have swapped fatigues for suits – has said it has won more than 80% of seats decided so far in a blatantly rigged election.
Attached to her release, the military sought to impose strict conditions, understood to be restrictions on where she could travel within Burma, and with whom she could meet.
It was rumoured that Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's best-known democracy advocate and a Nobel peace laureate, demanded an unconditional release and insisted on negotiating her unfettered freedom with military officials before she would set foot outside her door.
Former First Lady Laura Bush was a strong advocate for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Rarely stepping into the arena of foreign policy and diplomacy, she brought the imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi to the world's attention.
Excerpts:
"I've been interested in Burma for a long time. I hosted a roundtable during the UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] last year. I've been briefed by Ibrahim Gambari [the U.N. Secretary General's special advisor on Burma].
"Like many people, especially women, I got interested because of Aung San Suu Kyi, and I learned about Burma and how she represents the hopes of the people of Burma, and how those hopes were being dashed by her house arrest and the fact that her party won the elections and never had the opportunity to have power at all. I did work with women Senators to make sure we sent out a letter to Ban Ki-Moon. I've also met with ethnic minorities and talked with them.
"One of the things that's really important for the world to know is that the people of Burma do listen to radio — to Radio Free Asia, to the BBC — and when they hear that people around the world are speaking out for their rights, I think it gives them hope.""
Around the world, Aung San Suu Kyi has been honored. Aung San Suu Kyi has won numerous international awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Sakharov Prize from the European Parliament and the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom. She has called on people around the world to join the struggle for freedom in Burma, saying “Please use your liberty to promote ours.”
And, yes. She has a Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/aungsansuukyi?v=wall
The much anticipated release overshadows the sham election recently held in Burma.
Speculation surrounding Aung San Suu Kyi, her impending release and just how much freedom she will be allowed, has overshadowed the emerging results of Burma's first general election in 20 years, held last Sunday.
While no official declaration has been made, the military junta appears to have claimed an overwhelming victory for its own party, a result that has surprised no one.
The Union Solidarity and Development Party – bankrolled by military largesse and stacked with generals who have swapped fatigues for suits – has said it has won more than 80% of seats decided so far in a blatantly rigged election.
Attached to her release, the military sought to impose strict conditions, understood to be restrictions on where she could travel within Burma, and with whom she could meet.
It was rumoured that Aung San Suu Kyi, Burma's best-known democracy advocate and a Nobel peace laureate, demanded an unconditional release and insisted on negotiating her unfettered freedom with military officials before she would set foot outside her door.
Former First Lady Laura Bush was a strong advocate for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. Rarely stepping into the arena of foreign policy and diplomacy, she brought the imprisonment of Aung San Suu Kyi to the world's attention.
Excerpts:
"I've been interested in Burma for a long time. I hosted a roundtable during the UNGA [United Nations General Assembly] last year. I've been briefed by Ibrahim Gambari [the U.N. Secretary General's special advisor on Burma].
"Like many people, especially women, I got interested because of Aung San Suu Kyi, and I learned about Burma and how she represents the hopes of the people of Burma, and how those hopes were being dashed by her house arrest and the fact that her party won the elections and never had the opportunity to have power at all. I did work with women Senators to make sure we sent out a letter to Ban Ki-Moon. I've also met with ethnic minorities and talked with them.
"One of the things that's really important for the world to know is that the people of Burma do listen to radio — to Radio Free Asia, to the BBC — and when they hear that people around the world are speaking out for their rights, I think it gives them hope.""
Around the world, Aung San Suu Kyi has been honored. Aung San Suu Kyi has won numerous international awards, including the Nobel Peace Prize, the Sakharov Prize from the European Parliament and the United States Presidential Medal of Freedom. She has called on people around the world to join the struggle for freedom in Burma, saying “Please use your liberty to promote ours.”
And, yes. She has a Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/aungsansuukyi?v=wall
Pelosi Throws Herself A Party
Help the President's political party lose an historic amount of congressional seats? Hey, it's all good. Let's throw a party!
She throws a party on Capitol Hill to honor the "accomplishments" of the 111th Congress. "We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," she wrote to her Democratic colleagues. "It is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to create jobs and strengthen the middle class." That would be something new. Until now, her "bipartisan way" was more like Frank Sinatra's "My Way."
The woman celebrated her own magnificent self, it would appear. With help from the special interest groups, of course:
The event, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO, was in the Cannon Caucus Room Wednesday afternoon. It was closed press, and invited guests were "advocacy groups."
When asked who paid for it, Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for the California Democrat, declined to reveal who was footing the bill.
Hmmm. Closed to press. Mum on who is footing the bill. Whatever happened to all that transparency we were promised from the first woman Speaker of the House? The women who was going to be so much better than the men who performed the role before her?
I'm not the only one to notice the obvious.
An apparent lack of transparency, plus horrible optics equals a reasonable explanation behind the midterm results.
She throws a party on Capitol Hill to honor the "accomplishments" of the 111th Congress. "We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," she wrote to her Democratic colleagues. "It is my hope that we can work in a bipartisan way to create jobs and strengthen the middle class." That would be something new. Until now, her "bipartisan way" was more like Frank Sinatra's "My Way."
The woman celebrated her own magnificent self, it would appear. With help from the special interest groups, of course:
The event, according to an invitation obtained by POLITICO, was in the Cannon Caucus Room Wednesday afternoon. It was closed press, and invited guests were "advocacy groups."
When asked who paid for it, Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for the California Democrat, declined to reveal who was footing the bill.
Hmmm. Closed to press. Mum on who is footing the bill. Whatever happened to all that transparency we were promised from the first woman Speaker of the House? The women who was going to be so much better than the men who performed the role before her?
I'm not the only one to notice the obvious.
An apparent lack of transparency, plus horrible optics equals a reasonable explanation behind the midterm results.
Obama Trip Plagued By Protesters And No So Korea Love
Not only has the President escaped some very bad news after the devastating mid-term elections to his agenda, now his own Democrats have begun to break rank and speak out, too:
Tuesday’s losses have left high-level Democrats feeling freer to open up about White House missteps over the past two years — complaints that were repressed when Obama was strong but now are being aired as clues to his team’s isolation as he tries to regain command of the capital after his midterm thrashing.
Remember when Barack Obama was elected President and we were told over and over again that the world would now love us since the evil George W. Bush was no longer in office, pushing his agenda of freedom and strength?
Well, Obama and entourage are on a grand adventure in India which conveniently allows him to escape all the bad press he is receiving after his election "shellacking". If he thought it would be smooth sailing in India, he was mistaken.
I'm using a quote from the Hindustan Times - not a normal publication on my reading list:
Left party leaders on Sunday said their plans were on to hold country-wide protests Monday while US President Barack Obama is in New Delhi, but declined to give details.
Basudeb Acharia, leader of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) parliamentary party, told IANS that the Left parties have called for protests all over the country to demand the "extradition of Warren Anderson (the former chief of Union Carbide) and to protest against American attempts to enter the agricultural and retail sectors in India".
Protests all over the country to voice anger from the left over potential trade deals between India and America? Well, what do you know. Has the Obama infatuation bubble burst as far away as India? It seems so. While in India, Obama praised Ghandi, who is only nominally respected in the modern world. Does he not see the ridiculous pandering of calling Ghandi a "hero" while history clearly shows him responsible for the murder of millions and for today's Pakistan - the segregation of Muslims from India?
Then it was off to Indonesia where he continued to jeopardize our strong friendship with Israel. It is as though Obama doesn't understand the power of the podium, especially overseas.
His most recent example of amateur incompetence occurred after a full hour of talking with the Chinese leadership and coming away empty-handed over the issue of the value of their currency and our ballooning debt to them. In South Korea for the G-20 conference, he also managed to blow the agreement long planned and all but finished except for the signatures between South Korea and America on a trade agreement. Obama decided to add his own touches to it and the South Koreans didn't exactly swoon over the arrogance and disrespect.
The world leaders are not impressed with Obama, at the least unwilling to commit to alliances and trade agreements.
When Team Obama returns from their grand adventure overseas they will find the anger is still here. Democrats are fed up and he pleases no one trying to flip and flop about on decisions of policy. He is a man without core principles and fortitude to be true to them. He appears weak and wishy washy.
If Barack Obama is to rescue his presidency after stunning losses on November 2, he must decide how he will lead. Does he understand that liberalism has been dealt a death sentence or does he stubbornly pursue his agenda against the wishes of the majority of Americans?
Tuesday’s losses have left high-level Democrats feeling freer to open up about White House missteps over the past two years — complaints that were repressed when Obama was strong but now are being aired as clues to his team’s isolation as he tries to regain command of the capital after his midterm thrashing.
Remember when Barack Obama was elected President and we were told over and over again that the world would now love us since the evil George W. Bush was no longer in office, pushing his agenda of freedom and strength?
Well, Obama and entourage are on a grand adventure in India which conveniently allows him to escape all the bad press he is receiving after his election "shellacking". If he thought it would be smooth sailing in India, he was mistaken.
I'm using a quote from the Hindustan Times - not a normal publication on my reading list:
Left party leaders on Sunday said their plans were on to hold country-wide protests Monday while US President Barack Obama is in New Delhi, but declined to give details.
Basudeb Acharia, leader of the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M) parliamentary party, told IANS that the Left parties have called for protests all over the country to demand the "extradition of Warren Anderson (the former chief of Union Carbide) and to protest against American attempts to enter the agricultural and retail sectors in India".
Protests all over the country to voice anger from the left over potential trade deals between India and America? Well, what do you know. Has the Obama infatuation bubble burst as far away as India? It seems so. While in India, Obama praised Ghandi, who is only nominally respected in the modern world. Does he not see the ridiculous pandering of calling Ghandi a "hero" while history clearly shows him responsible for the murder of millions and for today's Pakistan - the segregation of Muslims from India?
Then it was off to Indonesia where he continued to jeopardize our strong friendship with Israel. It is as though Obama doesn't understand the power of the podium, especially overseas.
His most recent example of amateur incompetence occurred after a full hour of talking with the Chinese leadership and coming away empty-handed over the issue of the value of their currency and our ballooning debt to them. In South Korea for the G-20 conference, he also managed to blow the agreement long planned and all but finished except for the signatures between South Korea and America on a trade agreement. Obama decided to add his own touches to it and the South Koreans didn't exactly swoon over the arrogance and disrespect.
The world leaders are not impressed with Obama, at the least unwilling to commit to alliances and trade agreements.
When Team Obama returns from their grand adventure overseas they will find the anger is still here. Democrats are fed up and he pleases no one trying to flip and flop about on decisions of policy. He is a man without core principles and fortitude to be true to them. He appears weak and wishy washy.
If Barack Obama is to rescue his presidency after stunning losses on November 2, he must decide how he will lead. Does he understand that liberalism has been dealt a death sentence or does he stubbornly pursue his agenda against the wishes of the majority of Americans?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
White House Tampered With Interior Department Document
The Office of Inspector General released a report on its investigation into the possibility of the White House tampering with the Interior Department's decisions pertaining to the Gulf oil spill. Who exactly in the White House is allowing raw political ideology to control the conclusions of the Interior Department as it pertained to the deep water offshore drilling moratorium?
The OIG reviewed the final email exchange regarding the Executive Summary between
DOl and the White House. In the version that DOl sent to the White House, the moratorium was discussed on the first page of the Executive Summary, while the peer review language was on the second page of the Executive Summary, immediately following a summary list of the safety recommendations contained in the body of the 30-Day Report. The version that the White House returned to DOl had revised and re-ordered the language in the Executive Summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation. This caused the
distinction between the Secretary's moratorium recommendation - which had not been peer reviewed - and the safety recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report - which had been peer reviewed - to become effectively lost. Although the Executive Summary underwent some additional minor editing, it was ultimately published on May 27,2010, with the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation, resulting in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed.
So, in conclusion, the Inspector General determined that the deliberate tampering with the document's recommendations didn't directly violate guidelines. Especially mentioned was the fact the department issued an apology for their action. That is cold comfort for the thousands of jobs lost and dollars lost in income, not to mention the small businesses who had to close their doors along the way.
House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings (WA-04) released the following statement on the Department of the Interior (DOI) Inspector General report regarding changes made to DOI’s 30-Day Safety Report that recommended a drilling moratorium. This report comes after Hastings and other Natural Resources Committee Republicans called for an Inspector General investigation.
"This report begs more questions. Who at the White House actually rewrote the Interior Department document? Is that person a scientist with relevant experience or a political appointee? Furthermore, what other Interior Department decisions are being changed or made by unknown White House staff? This moratorium has cost thousands of jobs and caused severe economic impacts throughout the Gulf. We need to get answers as to who and how these policy decisions are being made and ensure that they are actually based on sound science."
Yes, some sound science would be good. This administration arrogantly proclaimed that, unlike previous administrations, this one would be completely relying on 'scientific' results and conclusions in theory. This administration arrogantly proclaimed that they would not use the scientific community for political gain.
When do we get that apology?
The OIG reviewed the final email exchange regarding the Executive Summary between
DOl and the White House. In the version that DOl sent to the White House, the moratorium was discussed on the first page of the Executive Summary, while the peer review language was on the second page of the Executive Summary, immediately following a summary list of the safety recommendations contained in the body of the 30-Day Report. The version that the White House returned to DOl had revised and re-ordered the language in the Executive Summary, placing the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation. This caused the
distinction between the Secretary's moratorium recommendation - which had not been peer reviewed - and the safety recommendations contained in the 30-Day Report - which had been peer reviewed - to become effectively lost. Although the Executive Summary underwent some additional minor editing, it was ultimately published on May 27,2010, with the peer review language immediately following the moratorium recommendation, resulting in the implication that the moratorium recommendation had been peer reviewed.
So, in conclusion, the Inspector General determined that the deliberate tampering with the document's recommendations didn't directly violate guidelines. Especially mentioned was the fact the department issued an apology for their action. That is cold comfort for the thousands of jobs lost and dollars lost in income, not to mention the small businesses who had to close their doors along the way.
House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Doc Hastings (WA-04) released the following statement on the Department of the Interior (DOI) Inspector General report regarding changes made to DOI’s 30-Day Safety Report that recommended a drilling moratorium. This report comes after Hastings and other Natural Resources Committee Republicans called for an Inspector General investigation.
"This report begs more questions. Who at the White House actually rewrote the Interior Department document? Is that person a scientist with relevant experience or a political appointee? Furthermore, what other Interior Department decisions are being changed or made by unknown White House staff? This moratorium has cost thousands of jobs and caused severe economic impacts throughout the Gulf. We need to get answers as to who and how these policy decisions are being made and ensure that they are actually based on sound science."
Yes, some sound science would be good. This administration arrogantly proclaimed that, unlike previous administrations, this one would be completely relying on 'scientific' results and conclusions in theory. This administration arrogantly proclaimed that they would not use the scientific community for political gain.
When do we get that apology?
Congressional Black Caucus Goes Bi-Partisan - Maybe
Newly elected Representative Allen West may be the third black Republican to join the Congressional Black Caucus as he takes office in January. The caucus has been around for forty years but has been dominated by liberal/Democratic politicians with no desire to work with any conservative policy. They are perfectly comfortable with a sheeple kind of existence in politics - that 90% of black voters vote for Democrats - and they are the only ethic or racial constituency to vote as a solid block. To say that this shows a complete absence of independent thought among black voters doesn't seem to bother the Democratic party, as they are dependent on these voters as the base of the party.
With two newly elected black GOP congressmen, it would be progress for them to join and participate in the caucus.
The Congressional Black Caucus will admit the two newly elected black Republicans from southern states, if they so desire membership.
The all-Democratic caucus had wavered over the issue since Tim Scott of South Carolina and Allen West of Florida were elected last week. Chairwoman Barbara Lee of California had pointed to the group's liberal mission statement as a potential point of conflict.
But in a statement Tuesday, the group said the two would be welcomed if they request membership.
West has said he wants to join to bring a new perspective to the group. Scott hasn't decided but said in an interview Tuesday he's leaning against it.
The 42-member caucus has had two Republican members in its four-decade history. The most recent black Republican in Congress, J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, who retired in 2003, declined to join.
The black caucus includes a handful of moderates but is mostly made up of liberals serving in safe Democratic districts. The addition of Republicans would likely shake up its weekly meetings and require its leaders to navigate around them to discuss strategy.
I thought it was a missed opportunity at the time for Watts to remain outside the Congressional Black Caucus, though it was understandable. Now, with a bi-racial President, our nation's first, who pledged to be a post-racial, post-partisan leader (though he hasn't fulfilled that pledge), it would be a positive sign for a more politically diverse membership to form. As many political candidates from minority populations realize that the Republican party is a natural home for them, culturally and economically, we are on our way as a nation to a better understanding of true diversity.
Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research ( http://www.nationalcenter.org). They issued the following statement:
Currently, the CBC has an entirely Democrat membership. Two black Republicans were elected to the House of Representatives in this year's mid-term elections. West told WOR radio: "I plan on joining [the CBC, and] I'm not gonna ask for permission or whatever. I'm gonna find out when they meet and I will be a member... I think I meet all the criteria, and it's so important that we break down this 'monolithic voice' that continues to talk about victimization and dependency in the black community." Congressman-elect Tim Scott (R-SC), the other new black Republican, has not yet said if he plans to try to join the CBC.
While the CBC reportedly has not yet offered congratulations to Congressman-elect West, The Hill newspaper now says that the CBC sent an unattributed e-mail to its current membership saying that the newly elected black Republicans will be "welcomed."
During the campaign, veteran CBC member John Lewis (D-GA) actually campaigned against West. Previously, the CBC had one Republican member -- Gary Franks (R-CT), who served 1991-1997 -- but the rest of the membership at the time voted to exclude Franks from participating in Caucus policy-making. A delegate, Melvin
Evans of the U.S. Virgin Islands, was a member while he served from 1979 through 1981. Another black Republican -- J.C. Watts (D-OK), who served from 1995-2003) -- chose not to join the CBC.
Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli warned against a similar shunning of Congressmen-elect West and Scott. Borelli said: "Tragically, abandoning black conservatives is nothing new for black progressive front groups. Black conservatives like myself have thus far encountered a deafening silence when we try to address our concerns to groups such as the CBC and the NAACP. As more black conservatives become vocal about their principles and values these groups ignore people like me and Congressman-elect West at their peril."
"Like so many of black America's self-professed leaders, the CBC must evolve in its thinking to properly serve our community and the nation. Congressman-elect West will help put an end to the monolithic thinking so prevalent among the current Congressional Black Caucus membership on the key issues such as school choice, government regulation and health care reform," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "As a veteran U.S. Army officer, West will also bring to the Caucus a much-needed injection of the proper ethical standards which the CBC, in its current form, sorely needs. Too many CBC members now unfortunately face ethics trials or are being dogged by ethics questions."
True opportunity and freedom. That's a good thing.
With two newly elected black GOP congressmen, it would be progress for them to join and participate in the caucus.
The Congressional Black Caucus will admit the two newly elected black Republicans from southern states, if they so desire membership.
The all-Democratic caucus had wavered over the issue since Tim Scott of South Carolina and Allen West of Florida were elected last week. Chairwoman Barbara Lee of California had pointed to the group's liberal mission statement as a potential point of conflict.
But in a statement Tuesday, the group said the two would be welcomed if they request membership.
West has said he wants to join to bring a new perspective to the group. Scott hasn't decided but said in an interview Tuesday he's leaning against it.
The 42-member caucus has had two Republican members in its four-decade history. The most recent black Republican in Congress, J.C. Watts of Oklahoma, who retired in 2003, declined to join.
The black caucus includes a handful of moderates but is mostly made up of liberals serving in safe Democratic districts. The addition of Republicans would likely shake up its weekly meetings and require its leaders to navigate around them to discuss strategy.
I thought it was a missed opportunity at the time for Watts to remain outside the Congressional Black Caucus, though it was understandable. Now, with a bi-racial President, our nation's first, who pledged to be a post-racial, post-partisan leader (though he hasn't fulfilled that pledge), it would be a positive sign for a more politically diverse membership to form. As many political candidates from minority populations realize that the Republican party is a natural home for them, culturally and economically, we are on our way as a nation to a better understanding of true diversity.
Project 21, a leading voice of black conservatives since 1992, is sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research ( http://www.nationalcenter.org). They issued the following statement:
Currently, the CBC has an entirely Democrat membership. Two black Republicans were elected to the House of Representatives in this year's mid-term elections. West told WOR radio: "I plan on joining [the CBC, and] I'm not gonna ask for permission or whatever. I'm gonna find out when they meet and I will be a member... I think I meet all the criteria, and it's so important that we break down this 'monolithic voice' that continues to talk about victimization and dependency in the black community." Congressman-elect Tim Scott (R-SC), the other new black Republican, has not yet said if he plans to try to join the CBC.
While the CBC reportedly has not yet offered congratulations to Congressman-elect West, The Hill newspaper now says that the CBC sent an unattributed e-mail to its current membership saying that the newly elected black Republicans will be "welcomed."
During the campaign, veteran CBC member John Lewis (D-GA) actually campaigned against West. Previously, the CBC had one Republican member -- Gary Franks (R-CT), who served 1991-1997 -- but the rest of the membership at the time voted to exclude Franks from participating in Caucus policy-making. A delegate, Melvin
Evans of the U.S. Virgin Islands, was a member while he served from 1979 through 1981. Another black Republican -- J.C. Watts (D-OK), who served from 1995-2003) -- chose not to join the CBC.
Project 21 fellow Deneen Borelli warned against a similar shunning of Congressmen-elect West and Scott. Borelli said: "Tragically, abandoning black conservatives is nothing new for black progressive front groups. Black conservatives like myself have thus far encountered a deafening silence when we try to address our concerns to groups such as the CBC and the NAACP. As more black conservatives become vocal about their principles and values these groups ignore people like me and Congressman-elect West at their peril."
"Like so many of black America's self-professed leaders, the CBC must evolve in its thinking to properly serve our community and the nation. Congressman-elect West will help put an end to the monolithic thinking so prevalent among the current Congressional Black Caucus membership on the key issues such as school choice, government regulation and health care reform," said Project 21 member Kevin Martin. "As a veteran U.S. Army officer, West will also bring to the Caucus a much-needed injection of the proper ethical standards which the CBC, in its current form, sorely needs. Too many CBC members now unfortunately face ethics trials or are being dogged by ethics questions."
True opportunity and freedom. That's a good thing.
Obama Criticizes Israel in Indonesia
Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu is in the United States on a five day tour, giving speeches. This presented a delicate situation as his government's plans to build an additional 1,000 homes in East Jerusalem were announced.
Israel on Wednesday ruled out a freeze on the building of new settler homes in east Jerusalem, defying world powers who have warned the issue risks wrecking fragile peace talks with the Palestinians.
"There has never been a freeze on construction in Jerusalem and there never will be such a freeze -- that has been the policy of Israeli governments for 40 years," cabinet secretary Zvi Hauser told public radio.
President Obama, in Indonesia as the announcement was made, dived right into the controversy. As is his habit, he criticized Israel on the world stage and seems oblivious - or deliberately obstinate - to the need for U.S. support for Israel.
Obama began his remarks on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute by saying he has not been fully briefed. That, however, didn't stop him from spouting utterly destructive nonsense against our only ally in that area of the world, Israel:
Asked whether the planned construction of new Israeli housing settlements in East Jerusalem might undermine his administration's Middle East peace efforts, Obama said that he had not been fully briefed on the latest developments on Israeli settlements but added a strong note of caution.
"This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations," Obama said. "And I'm concerned that we're not seeing each side make the extra effort involved to get a breakthrough that could finally create a framework for a secure Israel living side and side -- side by side -- in peace with a sovereign Palestine."
And this report from the region: Apparently, the US President criticized Israel for approving some 1,000 new housing units in East Jerusalem, which seems to be a sensitive move while peace negotiations with the Palestinians are going on.
The EU weighed in: European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton urged Israel on Tuesday to reverse its decision to build 1,300 new settler homes in occupied east Jerusalem. “This plan contradicts the efforts by the international community to resume direct negotiations and the decision should be reversed,” her office said in a statement.
Muslims in Egypt also weigh on their disappointment in Obama, so far, on not living up to the grandiose Cairo speech of 2009. In Jakarta on Wednesday, he repeated that America was not at war with Islam, was determined to bring security to Afghanistan and would spare no effort to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
"I personally had higher expectations for change" after the 2009 speech, said Cairo lawyer Hatem Khalil. "It's ignorant to believe Obama will solve the Palestinian case... I also agree that if the U.S. takes out all its military from Iraq in one phase the country will collapse -- but I think that with Egypt, more needs to be done."
Obama's Jakarta speech emphasized democracy and Indonesia's progress in bridging racial and religious divides, but Cairo University politics professor Hassan Nafaa said Arab states had moved away from democratic reform since the Bush administration.
Nafaa said Obama did not mention the recent record of Arab reform though his upbeat remarks about Indonesia's vibrant democracy were seen as a veiled reference to autocratic Muslim countries to emulate the Asian country.
Why would Arab nations feel pressure to make democratic reforms if the leading voices in the Obama administration continue to make world news with criticism of Israel's continued efforts to remain secure in a hostile part of the world? The number one sticking point in the negotiations between Israel and Palestine for a two state solution - which former President Bush was the first to promote, by the way - is that Palestine refuses to recognize the State of Israel. Without the basic acknowledgement of the existence of a legitimate nation, there will be no agreement between the two.
Barack Obama continues into Jimmy Carter territory in foreign policy failure - criticize and belittle our allies, stroke our enemies. Blanket statements about Muslims and Islam will not make a dent in our alliances. Each struggling Muslim nation - and the more affluent ones - have different needs. So do our allies. Israel is in a dangerous and shrinking part of the world. As long as all the concessions are placed on Israel, what is their incentive to change course?
Israel on Wednesday ruled out a freeze on the building of new settler homes in east Jerusalem, defying world powers who have warned the issue risks wrecking fragile peace talks with the Palestinians.
"There has never been a freeze on construction in Jerusalem and there never will be such a freeze -- that has been the policy of Israeli governments for 40 years," cabinet secretary Zvi Hauser told public radio.
President Obama, in Indonesia as the announcement was made, dived right into the controversy. As is his habit, he criticized Israel on the world stage and seems oblivious - or deliberately obstinate - to the need for U.S. support for Israel.
Obama began his remarks on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute by saying he has not been fully briefed. That, however, didn't stop him from spouting utterly destructive nonsense against our only ally in that area of the world, Israel:
Asked whether the planned construction of new Israeli housing settlements in East Jerusalem might undermine his administration's Middle East peace efforts, Obama said that he had not been fully briefed on the latest developments on Israeli settlements but added a strong note of caution.
"This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations," Obama said. "And I'm concerned that we're not seeing each side make the extra effort involved to get a breakthrough that could finally create a framework for a secure Israel living side and side -- side by side -- in peace with a sovereign Palestine."
And this report from the region: Apparently, the US President criticized Israel for approving some 1,000 new housing units in East Jerusalem, which seems to be a sensitive move while peace negotiations with the Palestinians are going on.
The EU weighed in: European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton urged Israel on Tuesday to reverse its decision to build 1,300 new settler homes in occupied east Jerusalem. “This plan contradicts the efforts by the international community to resume direct negotiations and the decision should be reversed,” her office said in a statement.
Muslims in Egypt also weigh on their disappointment in Obama, so far, on not living up to the grandiose Cairo speech of 2009. In Jakarta on Wednesday, he repeated that America was not at war with Islam, was determined to bring security to Afghanistan and would spare no effort to achieve peace between Israel and the Palestinians.
"I personally had higher expectations for change" after the 2009 speech, said Cairo lawyer Hatem Khalil. "It's ignorant to believe Obama will solve the Palestinian case... I also agree that if the U.S. takes out all its military from Iraq in one phase the country will collapse -- but I think that with Egypt, more needs to be done."
Obama's Jakarta speech emphasized democracy and Indonesia's progress in bridging racial and religious divides, but Cairo University politics professor Hassan Nafaa said Arab states had moved away from democratic reform since the Bush administration.
Nafaa said Obama did not mention the recent record of Arab reform though his upbeat remarks about Indonesia's vibrant democracy were seen as a veiled reference to autocratic Muslim countries to emulate the Asian country.
Why would Arab nations feel pressure to make democratic reforms if the leading voices in the Obama administration continue to make world news with criticism of Israel's continued efforts to remain secure in a hostile part of the world? The number one sticking point in the negotiations between Israel and Palestine for a two state solution - which former President Bush was the first to promote, by the way - is that Palestine refuses to recognize the State of Israel. Without the basic acknowledgement of the existence of a legitimate nation, there will be no agreement between the two.
Barack Obama continues into Jimmy Carter territory in foreign policy failure - criticize and belittle our allies, stroke our enemies. Blanket statements about Muslims and Islam will not make a dent in our alliances. Each struggling Muslim nation - and the more affluent ones - have different needs. So do our allies. Israel is in a dangerous and shrinking part of the world. As long as all the concessions are placed on Israel, what is their incentive to change course?
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Hensarling and Bachmann Vie For Conference Chair
The competition is getting revved up between Rep Jeb Hensarling and Rep Michelle Bachmann for Conference Chair within the new Republican majority in the House.
Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn endorsed Hensarling in his bid to become the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the 112th Congress. Blackburn chose to endorse Hensarling over Bachmann, and intends to whip up support for the former Republican Study Committee chairman, her spokesman said.
"Members casting a vote for Conference Chair aren't deciding which is the true conservative candidate. We are deciding which true conservative we trust to speak for us. Michele has brought great energy to our party and I know she will continue to do so. Jeb and I came to Congress together and we have enjoyed a productive collaboration for many years. I trust Jeb's knowledge, experience, and judgment when I vote for who will speak for me,” Blackburn said in a statement to The Hill.
Blackburn's endorsement and her commitment to actively work the issue is all you need to read. Hensarling will win. Blackburn, herself a darling of the Tea Party, particularly the female Tea Partiers, is a hard working Conservative Republican who is quite level-headed in her political fights. Her role and visibility in the party has been growing. Unlike Bachmann, Blackburn has not tried to co-op Tea Party power. You may remember that last Spring Bachmann made headlines for forming a Tea Party caucus and declaring herself the defacto leader. It looked at the time to be little more than a publicity stunt and hasn't really gone anywhere since its inception. Blackburn welcomes Tea Party support but is loyal to her Republican roots.
That is how it should be. The Tea Party has a natural home within the GOP because of the fiscal issues. Once elected as Republicans, the candidates who enjoyed strong Tea Party support have an obligation to help guide the GOP back to basics of conservatism.
Hensarling has the backing of Rep Paul Ryan and Rep Eric Cantor.
This is Hensarling's House website. The website touts his fiscal conservatism and the need to reign in earmarks. "He is the second ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee and a member of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform".
Both of these Representatives are strong conservatives. There is no point in others arguing who is the more conservative of the two. Bachmann is a bomb-thrower who tends to divide support while Hensarling is a quiet leader. Perhaps in this volatile time in politics, some quiet leadership would be welcomed.
Tennessee Rep. Marsha Blackburn endorsed Hensarling in his bid to become the fourth-highest ranking Republican in the 112th Congress. Blackburn chose to endorse Hensarling over Bachmann, and intends to whip up support for the former Republican Study Committee chairman, her spokesman said.
"Members casting a vote for Conference Chair aren't deciding which is the true conservative candidate. We are deciding which true conservative we trust to speak for us. Michele has brought great energy to our party and I know she will continue to do so. Jeb and I came to Congress together and we have enjoyed a productive collaboration for many years. I trust Jeb's knowledge, experience, and judgment when I vote for who will speak for me,” Blackburn said in a statement to The Hill.
Blackburn's endorsement and her commitment to actively work the issue is all you need to read. Hensarling will win. Blackburn, herself a darling of the Tea Party, particularly the female Tea Partiers, is a hard working Conservative Republican who is quite level-headed in her political fights. Her role and visibility in the party has been growing. Unlike Bachmann, Blackburn has not tried to co-op Tea Party power. You may remember that last Spring Bachmann made headlines for forming a Tea Party caucus and declaring herself the defacto leader. It looked at the time to be little more than a publicity stunt and hasn't really gone anywhere since its inception. Blackburn welcomes Tea Party support but is loyal to her Republican roots.
That is how it should be. The Tea Party has a natural home within the GOP because of the fiscal issues. Once elected as Republicans, the candidates who enjoyed strong Tea Party support have an obligation to help guide the GOP back to basics of conservatism.
Hensarling has the backing of Rep Paul Ryan and Rep Eric Cantor.
This is Hensarling's House website. The website touts his fiscal conservatism and the need to reign in earmarks. "He is the second ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee and a member of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform".
Both of these Representatives are strong conservatives. There is no point in others arguing who is the more conservative of the two. Bachmann is a bomb-thrower who tends to divide support while Hensarling is a quiet leader. Perhaps in this volatile time in politics, some quiet leadership would be welcomed.
Houston Chronicle Tweets About Perry Book Tour
This is the tweet on Twitter that caught my attention:
TxPotomac Houston Chronicle DC "The Rick Perry national victory tour continues with unlikely appearances on Jon Stewart's show and Eliot Spitzer's... http://fb.me/yFl6JkeY "
The article referenced is a recap of Governor Perry's appearance on The Daily Show. Why the Houston Chronicle's political blog thinks the appearance is "unlikely" is anyone's guess. There is also a fleeting reference to Perry's appearance on Client #9's television show, too.
The reason for the description may be because in the mindset of leftists, the world is a swell little vacuum. People promoting products, like books, however, have to reach out to all segments of the reading population. In the world of the political left, FOX News, for instance, is off limits. FOX News channel allows both conservative and liberal points of view to be spoken. And FOX News channel also allows more than one token conservative voice at a time if the panel consists of more than two people, unlike any other network or broadcast channel. Interesting that FOX News channel is kicking the rear end of every other cable station, right? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the appeal.
In a country of 40% conservatives, 20% liberals and the rest self-identify as independents, it only makes sense that the days of only one point of view are dead. Good riddance to them.
Why in the world would Rick Perry limit his audience, thus potential book buyers?
Former President George W. Bush began his week of publicity for his book with an interview with Matt Lauer, and today goes to Oprah. Both of these interviews conducted by liberals and both will reach large audiences. Conservatives continue to go to all quarters. Democrats do the silly such as boycotting a network - FOX News, for instance, during the last presidential campaign. How progressive!
And the "victory tour" crack about Perry's book tour? The Houston Chronicle endorsed Bill White for Governor over Rick Perry.
TxPotomac Houston Chronicle DC "The Rick Perry national victory tour continues with unlikely appearances on Jon Stewart's show and Eliot Spitzer's... http://fb.me/yFl6JkeY "
The article referenced is a recap of Governor Perry's appearance on The Daily Show. Why the Houston Chronicle's political blog thinks the appearance is "unlikely" is anyone's guess. There is also a fleeting reference to Perry's appearance on Client #9's television show, too.
The reason for the description may be because in the mindset of leftists, the world is a swell little vacuum. People promoting products, like books, however, have to reach out to all segments of the reading population. In the world of the political left, FOX News, for instance, is off limits. FOX News channel allows both conservative and liberal points of view to be spoken. And FOX News channel also allows more than one token conservative voice at a time if the panel consists of more than two people, unlike any other network or broadcast channel. Interesting that FOX News channel is kicking the rear end of every other cable station, right? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the appeal.
In a country of 40% conservatives, 20% liberals and the rest self-identify as independents, it only makes sense that the days of only one point of view are dead. Good riddance to them.
Why in the world would Rick Perry limit his audience, thus potential book buyers?
Former President George W. Bush began his week of publicity for his book with an interview with Matt Lauer, and today goes to Oprah. Both of these interviews conducted by liberals and both will reach large audiences. Conservatives continue to go to all quarters. Democrats do the silly such as boycotting a network - FOX News, for instance, during the last presidential campaign. How progressive!
And the "victory tour" crack about Perry's book tour? The Houston Chronicle endorsed Bill White for Governor over Rick Perry.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
Big Union Support For Pelosi's Leadership
Following the AFL-CIO's endorsement, the SEIU provided their own. SEIU President Mary Kay Henry justified it thus:
Henry credited the California Democrat with helping to pass the healthcare reform bill. She also said the Democratic leader played a big part in stopping former President George W. Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security during his second term, and helped pass the financial regulatory reform package last year.
So, the union is as tone deaf as the Democratic leadership. Helped pass healthcare reform? Deeply unpopular with the majority of Americans and that is the fault of Pelosi herself. She allowed it to be rammed through without even reading the bill or allowing others to know what all is in it. "We have to pass the bill so you know what is in it." Backwards, to say the least, especially with 1/6 of the national economy on the line.
Stopped 'privatizing' of Social Security? Perpetuating the meme that George W. Bush proposed to gamble away the money of seniors by allowing them some control over their own money. Except, in reality, it was never for those currently on Social Security benefits. It was an option - not mandatory, as the current administration strives to do with all of its legislation - to be given to younger workers interested in taking control of a portion of their money going into their Social Security benefits. A portion, not the whole enchilada.
Helped pass the financial reform package? True. Troubling mixed results have presented themselves since that was signed into law - like increased bank fees for transactions and the elimination of a bank's ability to cover your overdrawn checking account without a charge to you, if you are a customer. Now you have to opt into the program and yes, pay a fee. Thanks for the extra dollars paid out here and there, Nancy. Not all of us are multi-millionaires. Some of us are actually aware and watching our dollars.
AFL-CIO's President Richard Trumka issued the following on behalf of the union's support of Pelosi and her bid for Minority Leader:
Trumka credited Pelosi with helping to pass healthcare and financial services reforms and said she was instrumental in securing money for renewable energy and infrastructure.
Interesting that the support of the renewable energy portion of the stimulus bill should be mentioned, given the problems that have arisen in reports recently. From The Wall Street Journal: President Obama's top advisers recommended cutting off funding for a federal loan-guarantee program meant to spur the construction of wind and solar farms and other alternative energy projects, saying taxpayer dollars might be better spent elsewhere.
But the advisers, including Mr. Obama's outgoing National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, energy policy czar Carol Browner and Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, warned Mr. Obama that pulling money from the program would risk antagonizing powerful allies in Congress, and would "signal the failure of a Recovery Act program that has been featured prominently by the administration," according to an Oct. 25 memorandum viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The memo questions the logic behind subsidizing a big wind farm project in Oregon that Energy Secretary Steven Chu praised last month as "part of the administration's commitment to doubling our renewable energy generation by 2012." Mr. Chu said the federal government would provide, subject to conditions, a partial guarantee for a $1.3 billion loan for the project.
Maybe the grand pooh-bahs will get invitations to the big celebration:
Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives requests the pleasure of your company at a reception honoring the Accomplishments of the 111th Congress on Wednesday, the tenth day of November, two thousand ten at three thirty in the afternoon Cannon Caucus Room 345 Cannon House Office Building
Party on, Grandma MiMi.
Henry credited the California Democrat with helping to pass the healthcare reform bill. She also said the Democratic leader played a big part in stopping former President George W. Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security during his second term, and helped pass the financial regulatory reform package last year.
So, the union is as tone deaf as the Democratic leadership. Helped pass healthcare reform? Deeply unpopular with the majority of Americans and that is the fault of Pelosi herself. She allowed it to be rammed through without even reading the bill or allowing others to know what all is in it. "We have to pass the bill so you know what is in it." Backwards, to say the least, especially with 1/6 of the national economy on the line.
Stopped 'privatizing' of Social Security? Perpetuating the meme that George W. Bush proposed to gamble away the money of seniors by allowing them some control over their own money. Except, in reality, it was never for those currently on Social Security benefits. It was an option - not mandatory, as the current administration strives to do with all of its legislation - to be given to younger workers interested in taking control of a portion of their money going into their Social Security benefits. A portion, not the whole enchilada.
Helped pass the financial reform package? True. Troubling mixed results have presented themselves since that was signed into law - like increased bank fees for transactions and the elimination of a bank's ability to cover your overdrawn checking account without a charge to you, if you are a customer. Now you have to opt into the program and yes, pay a fee. Thanks for the extra dollars paid out here and there, Nancy. Not all of us are multi-millionaires. Some of us are actually aware and watching our dollars.
AFL-CIO's President Richard Trumka issued the following on behalf of the union's support of Pelosi and her bid for Minority Leader:
Trumka credited Pelosi with helping to pass healthcare and financial services reforms and said she was instrumental in securing money for renewable energy and infrastructure.
Interesting that the support of the renewable energy portion of the stimulus bill should be mentioned, given the problems that have arisen in reports recently. From The Wall Street Journal: President Obama's top advisers recommended cutting off funding for a federal loan-guarantee program meant to spur the construction of wind and solar farms and other alternative energy projects, saying taxpayer dollars might be better spent elsewhere.
But the advisers, including Mr. Obama's outgoing National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers, energy policy czar Carol Browner and Ron Klain, chief of staff to Vice President Joe Biden, warned Mr. Obama that pulling money from the program would risk antagonizing powerful allies in Congress, and would "signal the failure of a Recovery Act program that has been featured prominently by the administration," according to an Oct. 25 memorandum viewed by The Wall Street Journal.
The memo questions the logic behind subsidizing a big wind farm project in Oregon that Energy Secretary Steven Chu praised last month as "part of the administration's commitment to doubling our renewable energy generation by 2012." Mr. Chu said the federal government would provide, subject to conditions, a partial guarantee for a $1.3 billion loan for the project.
Maybe the grand pooh-bahs will get invitations to the big celebration:
Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the United States House of Representatives requests the pleasure of your company at a reception honoring the Accomplishments of the 111th Congress on Wednesday, the tenth day of November, two thousand ten at three thirty in the afternoon Cannon Caucus Room 345 Cannon House Office Building
Party on, Grandma MiMi.
Gov Christie Explains All On Meet the Press
Some sanity entered the debate about the renewal of the sunsetting tax code enacted in the Bush administration. If not renewed, the tax rates will rise for everyone. Not just the much maligned 'rich' but for everyone. That is why the Democrats are so anxious to paint it as a class warfare issue. They love that.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was on Sunday's Meet the Press and host David Gregory did what he does - he spouted the Democratic talking points as though they were the true facts on taxes. He started in on Christie, who has strong success in New Jersey of balancing the state budget and not raising taxes in the state, by declaring the continuation of tax policy as tax cuts.
The tax code has been in place for a decade. Ten years. There is no tax cut for anyone. If Congress renews the tax policy currently in place, then tax rates simply remain the same. There are no tax cuts. For anyone.
Christie, a Republican known for his tell-it-like-it-is attitude, disagreed with Gregory’s characterization of the looming battle in Congress over the Bush years tax rate as “tax cuts.”
Christie, saying such word choice drives him “crazy,” said: “This is maintaining the current tax policy in a weak economy, and what you’re advocating through your question is…”
Gregory interrupted: “That’s not fair. I’m not advocating. I’m questioning whether or not they have to be paid for.”
Christie shot back saying the debate over taxes is not about whether to make cuts, but rather is about whether Congress wants to raise taxes during a bad economy.
This is why Christie is so popular - he is unafraid to call Democrats out on their agenda, especially those in the press. He realizes he is not in a popularity contest, he is there to lead a state out of difficult economic times. He is a confident Republican.
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was on Sunday's Meet the Press and host David Gregory did what he does - he spouted the Democratic talking points as though they were the true facts on taxes. He started in on Christie, who has strong success in New Jersey of balancing the state budget and not raising taxes in the state, by declaring the continuation of tax policy as tax cuts.
The tax code has been in place for a decade. Ten years. There is no tax cut for anyone. If Congress renews the tax policy currently in place, then tax rates simply remain the same. There are no tax cuts. For anyone.
Christie, a Republican known for his tell-it-like-it-is attitude, disagreed with Gregory’s characterization of the looming battle in Congress over the Bush years tax rate as “tax cuts.”
Christie, saying such word choice drives him “crazy,” said: “This is maintaining the current tax policy in a weak economy, and what you’re advocating through your question is…”
Gregory interrupted: “That’s not fair. I’m not advocating. I’m questioning whether or not they have to be paid for.”
Christie shot back saying the debate over taxes is not about whether to make cuts, but rather is about whether Congress wants to raise taxes during a bad economy.
This is why Christie is so popular - he is unafraid to call Democrats out on their agenda, especially those in the press. He realizes he is not in a popularity contest, he is there to lead a state out of difficult economic times. He is a confident Republican.
Monday, November 08, 2010
Olbermann Suspension - Publicity Stunt or Ethics?
It's been fascinating to watch the unfolding of the media buzz over one of their own being dismissed from MSNBC. Show host Keith Olbermann was suspended without pay for violating the network's stated policy that show hosts - no way am I describing Olbermann as a 'journalist' - cannot contribute money to political campaigns. They say it is an ethical violation. They say it keeps the integrity of the network in tact.
Well, if that is why Olbermann was let go, then so be it. But if this is a part of the company policy for pursuing ethics in broadcasting, then MSNBC lost that battle a long time ago. No one with an ounce of intelligence believes that the cable network is anything but a mouthpiece for the DNC. The show hosts are all liberals with spouting and promoting the Democratic agenda through well coordinated talking points being task number one. What about Chris Matthews, former Democratic staffer and speechwriter who mulled over a run for Senate this past election cycle for a good six months or so with much fanfare? Did that tip his hand as to which team he cheers for?
Olbermann's ratings were sagging, as are all of the MSNBC's line up. Only the hard core devout watch the evening programming and they know exactly what they are getting. Olbermann is well compensated to put on his nasty, over the top shows - reported to be $7 million per year. For that American airwaves are poisoned with vitriol and segments like 'the worst person in the world'.
Some think Olbermann was suspended because he refused to apologize for his violation.
From Politico:
Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.” Olbermann told his bosses he didn't know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC's prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, who make considerably less.
Some think it is all a publicity stunt.
Then, there’s the fact that this publicity supernova comes on the heels of the network’s expensive “Lean Forward” re-branding effort, which, for all the fun that’s been had at its expense, has earned the notice of MCNBC’s two chief competitors.
What really makes you go “hmmm,” though, is the fact that, just days before Olbermann’s indefinite suspension, the Countdown host announced the “indefinite suspension” of the “Worst Persons in the World” segment, in an explicit bid to draw just the contrast that his own suspension has. We’re through the looking glass here, people
The irony is that the hacks at MSNBC enjoy perpetrating the myth that they are employees of a politically unbiased network. They enjoy nothing more than verbally abusing FOX and its cable hosts. It is the same old liberal double standard in play. "Lean Forward" only if it leans left.
Adding to the interest in this story - the Conservatives coming out in support of Olbermann. This points that like the Juan Williams and NPR brouhaha recently, this action is bringing together conservatives and liberals alike: The notion that the Olbermann suspension is ridiculous has united both liberals and conservatives. Maddow said on Friday night that she, Olbermann, and some others on MSNBC are liberals and identify themselves as such; she called for her network to restore Olbermann to his show immediately. On The Weekly Standard website, conservative William Kristol says, “MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous. First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting. Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.”
Whether intentional or not - and I think it is - the publicity may bring about increased viewership to the flailing cable network.
Well, if that is why Olbermann was let go, then so be it. But if this is a part of the company policy for pursuing ethics in broadcasting, then MSNBC lost that battle a long time ago. No one with an ounce of intelligence believes that the cable network is anything but a mouthpiece for the DNC. The show hosts are all liberals with spouting and promoting the Democratic agenda through well coordinated talking points being task number one. What about Chris Matthews, former Democratic staffer and speechwriter who mulled over a run for Senate this past election cycle for a good six months or so with much fanfare? Did that tip his hand as to which team he cheers for?
Olbermann's ratings were sagging, as are all of the MSNBC's line up. Only the hard core devout watch the evening programming and they know exactly what they are getting. Olbermann is well compensated to put on his nasty, over the top shows - reported to be $7 million per year. For that American airwaves are poisoned with vitriol and segments like 'the worst person in the world'.
Some think Olbermann was suspended because he refused to apologize for his violation.
From Politico:
Network sources tell Playbook that Keith Olbermann was suspended because he refused to deliver an on-camera mea culpa, which would have allowed him to continue anchoring “Countdown.” Olbermann told his bosses he didn't know he was barred from making campaign contributions, although he is resisting saying that publicly. Olbermann may not hold as many cards as he thinks. He makes $7 million a year and MSNBC's prime time is not as dependent on him as it was before the addition of Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O'Donnell, who make considerably less.
Some think it is all a publicity stunt.
Then, there’s the fact that this publicity supernova comes on the heels of the network’s expensive “Lean Forward” re-branding effort, which, for all the fun that’s been had at its expense, has earned the notice of MCNBC’s two chief competitors.
What really makes you go “hmmm,” though, is the fact that, just days before Olbermann’s indefinite suspension, the Countdown host announced the “indefinite suspension” of the “Worst Persons in the World” segment, in an explicit bid to draw just the contrast that his own suspension has. We’re through the looking glass here, people
The irony is that the hacks at MSNBC enjoy perpetrating the myth that they are employees of a politically unbiased network. They enjoy nothing more than verbally abusing FOX and its cable hosts. It is the same old liberal double standard in play. "Lean Forward" only if it leans left.
Adding to the interest in this story - the Conservatives coming out in support of Olbermann. This points that like the Juan Williams and NPR brouhaha recently, this action is bringing together conservatives and liberals alike: The notion that the Olbermann suspension is ridiculous has united both liberals and conservatives. Maddow said on Friday night that she, Olbermann, and some others on MSNBC are liberals and identify themselves as such; she called for her network to restore Olbermann to his show immediately. On The Weekly Standard website, conservative William Kristol says, “MSNBC’s suspension of Keith Olbermann is ludicrous. First, he donated money to candidates he liked. He didn’t take money, or favors, in a way that influenced his reporting. Second, he’s not a reporter. It’s an opinion show. If Olbermann wants to put his money where his mouth is, more power to him.”
Whether intentional or not - and I think it is - the publicity may bring about increased viewership to the flailing cable network.
Palin Propels The Debate About 2012
Does Sarah Palin want to be a serious contender in politics, does she want to be a kingmaker, or does she want to be a celebrity? That is for her to determine and now is the time for her to do it. She received mixed results from the kingmaker role and it is harder to take her as a serious contender in 2012 if she continues on in entertainment gossip television.
This is the latest release from Team Sarah:
Palin contends she will have to call a family meeting and poll their thoughts on a Presidential run. Daughter Bristol is on the record as supportive and there is an Anchorage radio station hoping to pick up publicity with the announcement:
Even Bristol Palin wants her mother to run for president, telling CBS, "I know she is great, and she is great for our country." And since we are now officially in premature presidential season, inquiring minds wonder: When will we know? If Sarah Palin makes that big announcement, she's pledged to make it on KWHL, a local Anchorage FM rock station, where the playlist includes Metallica and the Foo Fighters.
Cool. But so what? Here's a bit of a piece in The Economist:
On balance, Mrs Palin undermined her potential credibility by focusing on politics rather than policy, by gambling on a slew of high-profile endorsements (which kept her on television, at campaign events) rather than trying to find and nurture a handful of intellectual or philosophical protegees. Her "mama grizzlies" concept was a clever bit of branding, but the campaign never advanced beyond identity politics.
Having defined herself as an intrinsically political figure, Mrs Palin is bound by the rules of that game. And so she emerges from the 2010 cycle as a diminished national figure. This is partly the natural career progression of an also-ran: you get a special standing as the face of the opposition, until the next election cycle creates a new set of faces. So now the spotlight swings to people like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, who in addition to being the face of the opposition are actually, having been in elected, in a position to do something about it. As for Mrs Palin, we won't hear so much from her until she makes a decision about 2012.
It's her choice now. Does she do the hard work? Does she read and study and develop more than talking points about policy? She has proven an expertise on energy issues. Can she do it on a more well-rounded national and international level?
In 2012, America deserves a decent choice to be run against our present President. This President has proven the disaster that awaits when he or she is unprepared and intellectually incapable of measuring up to the job.
This is the latest release from Team Sarah:
Palin contends she will have to call a family meeting and poll their thoughts on a Presidential run. Daughter Bristol is on the record as supportive and there is an Anchorage radio station hoping to pick up publicity with the announcement:
Even Bristol Palin wants her mother to run for president, telling CBS, "I know she is great, and she is great for our country." And since we are now officially in premature presidential season, inquiring minds wonder: When will we know? If Sarah Palin makes that big announcement, she's pledged to make it on KWHL, a local Anchorage FM rock station, where the playlist includes Metallica and the Foo Fighters.
Cool. But so what? Here's a bit of a piece in The Economist:
On balance, Mrs Palin undermined her potential credibility by focusing on politics rather than policy, by gambling on a slew of high-profile endorsements (which kept her on television, at campaign events) rather than trying to find and nurture a handful of intellectual or philosophical protegees. Her "mama grizzlies" concept was a clever bit of branding, but the campaign never advanced beyond identity politics.
Having defined herself as an intrinsically political figure, Mrs Palin is bound by the rules of that game. And so she emerges from the 2010 cycle as a diminished national figure. This is partly the natural career progression of an also-ran: you get a special standing as the face of the opposition, until the next election cycle creates a new set of faces. So now the spotlight swings to people like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio, who in addition to being the face of the opposition are actually, having been in elected, in a position to do something about it. As for Mrs Palin, we won't hear so much from her until she makes a decision about 2012.
It's her choice now. Does she do the hard work? Does she read and study and develop more than talking points about policy? She has proven an expertise on energy issues. Can she do it on a more well-rounded national and international level?
In 2012, America deserves a decent choice to be run against our present President. This President has proven the disaster that awaits when he or she is unprepared and intellectually incapable of measuring up to the job.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
Senator-Elect Rubio Delivers GOP Weekly Address
The newly-elected Senator from Florida speaks to a listening nation:
This is the change we were hoping for, America.
This is the change we were hoping for, America.
Where Does The Tea Party Go From Here?
Where does the Tea Party movement go from here? Do they continue on, do a little maturing along the way and prepare to be a player again in 2012?
Peggy Noonan delivers some advice on the reality that the Tea Party coalition will have to come to terms with not only looking for and supporting candidates who are "new" on the national scene but those who are practical choices, too. Yes, practical. Supporting candidates who understand conservative talking points but are not able to capture an audience, not able to get the message across without the audience questioning an ability to win will not be a winning strategy.
A common mistake made by the Tea Party is that the members are prone to dismiss out of hand a candidate as "the establishment" or "RINO" which has also proven to be a loser for them. There is no such person as a "RINO" and "the establishment" won many races with Tea Party support - Governor Rick Perry in Texas, for one. He is definitely "the establishment" who learned to win over the Tea Party folks early on. Originally the Tea Party was leaning towards Debra Medina, a Republican woman on her first venture into major state office. She didn't suffer complete humiliation but she couldn't survive against seasoned politicians. She did ok for her first time out.
Electable doesn't mean not-conservative. Electable means mature, accomplished, stable—and able to persuade.
The challenge is to whom will the Tea Party turn for guidance? Do they continue on with the likes of Sarah Palin, who is first and foremost a Republican in her philosophy - note her endorsements of John McCain, Rick Perry, over "Tea Party" candidates - yet, calls Ronald Reagan "an actor" as she justifies her less than smart choices in venues. She appears on entertainment gossip shows to pursue celebrity, not political heft. She shows her ignorance and the fact that she doesn't get it when she makes flippant remarks.
Noonan continues:
The point is that Reagan's career is a guide, not only for the tea party but for all in politics. He brought his fully mature, fully seasoned self into politics with him. He wasn't in search of a life when he ran for office, and he wasn't in search of fame; he'd already lived a life, he was already well known, he'd accomplished things in the world.
Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can't just bully them, you can't just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.
Let's take Christine O'Donnell's race in Delaware, for example.
Christine O'Donnell experienced a humiliating defeat because she was not ready for the job. She made bad decisions along the way and she was not able to overcome the results. Then, she turned around and waged war on the national party and some of the experienced - read successful - operatives in the party structure. Not smart. Persuade your detractors, don't berate them. O'Donnell was a perpetual political candidate in Delaware - that should have been a red flag for those who backed her candidacy in the primary and endorsed her.
No whining. We don't like it in President Obama and we don't like it within our own party, either.
Peggy Noonan delivers some advice on the reality that the Tea Party coalition will have to come to terms with not only looking for and supporting candidates who are "new" on the national scene but those who are practical choices, too. Yes, practical. Supporting candidates who understand conservative talking points but are not able to capture an audience, not able to get the message across without the audience questioning an ability to win will not be a winning strategy.
A common mistake made by the Tea Party is that the members are prone to dismiss out of hand a candidate as "the establishment" or "RINO" which has also proven to be a loser for them. There is no such person as a "RINO" and "the establishment" won many races with Tea Party support - Governor Rick Perry in Texas, for one. He is definitely "the establishment" who learned to win over the Tea Party folks early on. Originally the Tea Party was leaning towards Debra Medina, a Republican woman on her first venture into major state office. She didn't suffer complete humiliation but she couldn't survive against seasoned politicians. She did ok for her first time out.
Electable doesn't mean not-conservative. Electable means mature, accomplished, stable—and able to persuade.
The challenge is to whom will the Tea Party turn for guidance? Do they continue on with the likes of Sarah Palin, who is first and foremost a Republican in her philosophy - note her endorsements of John McCain, Rick Perry, over "Tea Party" candidates - yet, calls Ronald Reagan "an actor" as she justifies her less than smart choices in venues. She appears on entertainment gossip shows to pursue celebrity, not political heft. She shows her ignorance and the fact that she doesn't get it when she makes flippant remarks.
Noonan continues:
The point is that Reagan's career is a guide, not only for the tea party but for all in politics. He brought his fully mature, fully seasoned self into politics with him. He wasn't in search of a life when he ran for office, and he wasn't in search of fame; he'd already lived a life, he was already well known, he'd accomplished things in the world.
Here is an old tradition badly in need of return: You have to earn your way into politics. You should go have a life, build a string of accomplishments, then enter public service. And you need actual talent: You have to be able to bring people in and along. You can't just bully them, you can't just assert and taunt, you have to be able to persuade.
Let's take Christine O'Donnell's race in Delaware, for example.
Christine O'Donnell experienced a humiliating defeat because she was not ready for the job. She made bad decisions along the way and she was not able to overcome the results. Then, she turned around and waged war on the national party and some of the experienced - read successful - operatives in the party structure. Not smart. Persuade your detractors, don't berate them. O'Donnell was a perpetual political candidate in Delaware - that should have been a red flag for those who backed her candidacy in the primary and endorsed her.
No whining. We don't like it in President Obama and we don't like it within our own party, either.
Saturday, November 06, 2010
German Opinion Of Obama Sours
In the city of Berlin, the city where candidate Obama held the pompous, over the top rally before the Presidential election ever occurred so that Europeans would think of him as Presidential material, the opinions of Obama are not so swooning in nature. Looks like the European press is a bit more 'eyes wide open' over Barack Obama than their American counterparts are willing to be.
Several German opinion-makers were clear that the election was more of a referendum on the president, who comes across as "cold, arrogant, and elitist," and less of an endorsement of the Republicans and their policies. There is widespread agreement in the editorial pages that Obama failed to make the case for his administration's accomplishments, a fact that he himself has acknowledged.
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: "Two years ago his vision inspired voters. Today the same man often sounds strangely bloodless. Back then his cool, self-assured composure impressed many, now the same character comes across as cold, arrogant, even elitist. The right may well put on a shrill rough performance, and stand in the media spotlight. However, this president was never going to win votes on the right anyway. Obama's historic victory in 2008 was created by the middle of American society -- the independent voters and the suburbanites. It is this center that has abandoned him."
Germans wildly applauded a celebrity style Presidential campaigner in Barack Obama. What they see now is President Obama. He has divided Americans as never before. Unable to fulfill his promises to be the post-racial, post-partisan President, the personal arrogance is front and center.
For the world to see.
Several German opinion-makers were clear that the election was more of a referendum on the president, who comes across as "cold, arrogant, and elitist," and less of an endorsement of the Republicans and their policies. There is widespread agreement in the editorial pages that Obama failed to make the case for his administration's accomplishments, a fact that he himself has acknowledged.
The center-left Süddeutsche Zeitung writes: "Two years ago his vision inspired voters. Today the same man often sounds strangely bloodless. Back then his cool, self-assured composure impressed many, now the same character comes across as cold, arrogant, even elitist. The right may well put on a shrill rough performance, and stand in the media spotlight. However, this president was never going to win votes on the right anyway. Obama's historic victory in 2008 was created by the middle of American society -- the independent voters and the suburbanites. It is this center that has abandoned him."
Germans wildly applauded a celebrity style Presidential campaigner in Barack Obama. What they see now is President Obama. He has divided Americans as never before. Unable to fulfill his promises to be the post-racial, post-partisan President, the personal arrogance is front and center.
For the world to see.
Demise of Conservatism Greatly Exaggerated
The abundance of articles online of those who are processing the numbers and pontificating provides some interesting reading material for those of us who are political junkies. The far left, for example, is in full out bewilderment as to the fact that this is still, clearly, a center right country in political philosophy. They thought that because Barack Obama pulled off a healthy victory on election night in November 2008 that the country had finally wakened to the wisdom of the liberal agenda put on hold since the 1960's and 70's. They could not have misread the election more incorrectly.
Remember the onset of all the articles and even books about the death of conservatism? Why, we were told by the likes of James Carville that the Democratic majority would be in place for a good 40 or so years. Certainly for the next couple of generations, anyway. Their arrogance ran wild as they showed all the signs of really bad winners - no good sportsmanship for the Democrats. They strutted, smirked, preened, and outright boasted about their superior intellects and philosophy on display.
Magazine covers were on sale with photos of elephants as endangered species and then the Tea Party began. A lone trader on the Chicago stock exchange lost his temper and was filmed declaring his refusal to accept the bad policies brought forward by the administration to heal the sick economy. His video went viral in no time as a good many Americans were feeling the same frustration and disgust at what was presented around them. It was solely economics, baby.
Folks who were never involved in politics, certainly not publicly, discovered the power and security of numbers and got involved. The rabid left in the political elite chambers of Congress decided to paint ordinary citizens as racist and Nazis and even astroturf. How could so many be so opposed to the agenda of the administration and others who desired to implement passe political philosophy from decades ago?
Some are starting to put two and two together:
Self-described "moderates" turned out in lower numbers than in 2006 and shifted Republican in lower numbers than average. Put these two things together and they suggest that there's a large number of independent voters who have shifted their self-ID from moderate to conservative. Were they really conservative all along but only started fessing up to it this this year? Or is there a genuine ideological shift in progress? Hard to say. But either way, this year they showed up at the polls in much larger numbers than in 2006. This is the famous "enthusiasm gap," likely driven by tea party fervor and millions of dollars of Medicare demagoguery.
I wonder if Mother Jones includes the taxpayer funded Medicare ads filmed by Andy Griffith to push Obamacare?
Obama and his staffers plus the Democrats in leadership are very busy declaring that it is poor communication skills that have created a discontent electorate and not the bad policies they have rammed down our throats. Maybe a little time will bring the out of the denial. How much more communication could Obama have done? He devoted speech after speech, day after day, trip after trip covered with the national media to health care/insurance reform along with his other pieces of his agenda. Communication is not the problem.
Remember the onset of all the articles and even books about the death of conservatism? Why, we were told by the likes of James Carville that the Democratic majority would be in place for a good 40 or so years. Certainly for the next couple of generations, anyway. Their arrogance ran wild as they showed all the signs of really bad winners - no good sportsmanship for the Democrats. They strutted, smirked, preened, and outright boasted about their superior intellects and philosophy on display.
Magazine covers were on sale with photos of elephants as endangered species and then the Tea Party began. A lone trader on the Chicago stock exchange lost his temper and was filmed declaring his refusal to accept the bad policies brought forward by the administration to heal the sick economy. His video went viral in no time as a good many Americans were feeling the same frustration and disgust at what was presented around them. It was solely economics, baby.
Folks who were never involved in politics, certainly not publicly, discovered the power and security of numbers and got involved. The rabid left in the political elite chambers of Congress decided to paint ordinary citizens as racist and Nazis and even astroturf. How could so many be so opposed to the agenda of the administration and others who desired to implement passe political philosophy from decades ago?
Some are starting to put two and two together:
Self-described "moderates" turned out in lower numbers than in 2006 and shifted Republican in lower numbers than average. Put these two things together and they suggest that there's a large number of independent voters who have shifted their self-ID from moderate to conservative. Were they really conservative all along but only started fessing up to it this this year? Or is there a genuine ideological shift in progress? Hard to say. But either way, this year they showed up at the polls in much larger numbers than in 2006. This is the famous "enthusiasm gap," likely driven by tea party fervor and millions of dollars of Medicare demagoguery.
I wonder if Mother Jones includes the taxpayer funded Medicare ads filmed by Andy Griffith to push Obamacare?
Obama and his staffers plus the Democrats in leadership are very busy declaring that it is poor communication skills that have created a discontent electorate and not the bad policies they have rammed down our throats. Maybe a little time will bring the out of the denial. How much more communication could Obama have done? He devoted speech after speech, day after day, trip after trip covered with the national media to health care/insurance reform along with his other pieces of his agenda. Communication is not the problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)