It began with an article Meghan McCain wrote for The Daily Beast on Ann Coulter and the more strident of the conservative voices in our nation's political discussion. Ann Coulter did not feel dissed by it, however, or at least not strongly enough to go pubic with a response back to Ms. McCain. Unfortunately, radio talk show host Laura Ingraham did.
On her national radio show last week, Ingraham decided to tear into McCain by using a particularly low form of ridicule. She mocked her as a "Valley Girl gone awry" and she referred to her as a "plus sized model". The free download is now available on her web site: www.lauraingraham.com for you to form your own opinion. Ingraham speaks in what she would consider a Valley Girl voice and accent as she responds to snippets of McCain's interview on a morning talk show.
Meghan McCain responded to Ingraham in a piece in The Daily Beast by writing of her disappointment with Laura's choice of focusing on her body and not her words. She took cheap shots that are beneath her years of education and public punditry. Meghan wrote that this is just as offensive as the critics of her mother on the campaign trail who remarked that Cindy McCain is too thin and frail looking. She questions why women have to go there with the personal attacks instead of a discussion of political ideas. McCain said her intention in writing the piece on her opinion of Ann Coulter's tactics was to begin a dialogue among Republicans.
Let's be clear - Meghan McCain is not overweight. She is a healthy, normal size. She is not thin and she is not making a living as a model. Unlike her mom, she doesn't wear a size 0 jean. And, she's ok with that. She is not a Valley Girl, either. She is young and she is educated. She graduated from Columbia University and hit the campaign trail with her parents to support her father's bid for the presidency. She recorded the campaign on her personal blog - www.mccainblogette.com - and she now writes for The Daily Beast. She has written for Newsweek and she was an intern during her college years for Saturday Night Live.
Last week, Ingraham mocked McCain on her radio show after the daughter of former GOP presidential nominee John McCain urged Republicans to seek compromise with Democrats. Ingraham called McCain “a Valley Girl gone awry” and a “plus-sized model.”
As mentioned at CNNPolitics.com, on "The View" Meghan said,“What do young women think when I speak my mind about politics and I want to have a political discussion about the ideological future of the Republican Party, and the answer is, ‘She’s fat, she shouldn’t have an opinion.’ What kind of message are we sending young women?”
The View’s conservative co-host, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, called Ingraham’s remarks “a low blow.”
Ingraham responded to McCain once again on her show, telling McCain that she needs to learn to deal with satire and “teasing.”“Can I say ‘lighten up,’ or is that offensive too?”
Then, in Laura's E-Blast today she writes solely on her ongoing tussle with McCain. She begins "Memo to Meghan McCain: Enjoy the media coverage while it lasts, but know you're being used. You are the flavor of the month in left-wing media land because you are a Republican bashing the GOP. Likewise, your dad is most popular among the same people when he is slamming his Republican brethren in full-blown "maverick" fashion. At least he backs up his views with a lifetime of sacrifice and public service. What is Ms. McCain's own political, business, or real-world experience that lends credibility to her argument that the GOP needs to "moderate" (read: abandon its core principles)?
She ends with: "Next time, just for fun, Meghan should pretend that she's had a change of heart and is now a pro-life conservative. Then she'll really see how the Mean Girls treatment feels."
Laura Ingraham brings in John McCain, as she is not one to ever miss the opportunity to bash him. Ingraham is at least 20 years older than Meghan McCain and she should find a more productive and less personal way to debate her ideas. The fact that Laura Ingraham is so closed off to any ideas she feels are outside of her narrow view of conservatism is one reason younger people are turned off by the Republican party. Let's hope one day Ingraham will understand that.
Dialogue is good. The Republican party will be successful again as it reaches out to many voices with the common goal of fiscal conservatism and personal freedom. Social conservatives are not the sum total of the party. The Republican party is bigger than that and must move with the growing pains or the party will never go forward.
Enough with the circular firing squads. Lay off of Michael Steele and Rush Limbaugh. Let Michael Steele do his job. Let Rush do his job. Meghan and Laura have theirs to do, too. Laura Ingraham needs a bit less ego and Meghan will mature as she goes, too.
Let it go.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Blame Hillary for the Gift Giving Fiasco
When the President of the United States has a personal moment of embarrassment, Americans can laugh and shrug it off as just something that could happen to any of us. For example, the moment caught on tape - and played endlessly - of President Bush unable to open a door to leave the answering session of a conference. Or perhaps the moment new President Obama walked through a window sill instead of the door at the White House. That moment was only briefly shown, however. Either example shows some humaness and is not a lasting mark for anyone.
Some of the basic competence of the current administration is being questioned now, though, just as the question of competence was apparent during the second G.W.Bush administration. For all the roses tossed by the media and the Democrats in this country to the new administration, as we are to believe this group is so organized and professional in their hit-the-ground-running style, the wheels are flying off the bus.
Not only has the curtain been pulled back on the poorly managed vetting process of the new people in charge of staffing the place, but now it seems the administration is sorely lacking in basic common courtesy and decorum. On the international stage these two words - courtesy and decorum - are very important. Like class, either you have it or you don't. The position of head of protocol is one that is in dire need of stepping up and guiding the new first couple in the White House. President and Mrs. Obama, while trying desparately to be a part of the glittery, glamourous crowd of the rich and powerful in Washington - including living large and entertaining big at least once a week in the White House, as the President wants to toss around the comparisons to the Great Depression to the current economy - have begun the quiet diplomacy of gift giving to our friends overseas on an incredibly embarrasing note.
When Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife visited the White House recently, the British Prime Minister was almost giddy with glee of forging a relationship with the new president. He assumed, rightfully so, that a bond was present between our two countries and we would all continue to work together on the international stage. Silly Prime Minister. His first clue should have been that he was not the first foreign dignitary called by the new president. That honor went to the current president of Palestine.
President Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill which was displayed in the Oval Office. Winston Churchill was half American, after all. The bust was a gift loaned from former Prime Minister Tony Blair to former President George W. Bush after 9/11/01 as a show of support. He cancelled a joint appearance in the Rose Garden and held only a brief, low energy availability in the White House and this embarrassed our British friends.
For the gift exchange, Prime Minister Brown gave the new president several thoughtful gifts, including a pen holder "made from a Royal Navy vessel that once fought to end the Atlantic slave trade and a first edition of the eight-volume biography of Winston Churchill begun by WInston's son Randolph and completed by Sir Martin Gilbert. Obama paid him back with a stack of Hollywood movies on DVD that Brown could just as easily have ordered from Netflix", said Arthur Herman in a recent column in the New York Post. Mrs. Brown presented the Obama girls with dresses from the top boutique for girls in London along with matching necklaces, and a collection of books by British authors. The Brown boys were given small plastic models of Marine One from the Obamas.
Rich Galen, who writes a column called Mullings on the Internet, is the former press secretary to Newt Gingrich and Washington insider. He brought up an interesting point as all of this drama played out. He pointed to the "Peter Principle" - "In a hierachy every employee tends to rise to his or her level of incompetence", in a recent column. As diplomats around the world scratch their heads and wonder what the new group in the White House is up to, it is Hillary Clinton who is technically in charge of the Gift Division of the Office of Protocol in the State Department. This is the division tasked with coming up with gifts for diplomats and officials during foreign visits. Maybe Hillary wanted to get the first term of Barack Obama off to a shaky start in the gift giving department.
In recent days, even the most ardent Obama fans are beginning to express doubts of the degree of competence of the new administration. Not only from the hiring of lobbyists, though Obama was using the word as though it were a swear word on the campaign trail while claiming he would never hire such low lifes in his administration, but obvious contradictions like bringing in Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Geithner was a part of the former administration's initial bail out program as head of the Federal Reserve in New York. If the Bush policies and actions were destroying the economy, why bring in an archetect of the bail out program to solve the current problems?
From the NY Post:"His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.
The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.
And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role."
No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too."
Some of the basic competence of the current administration is being questioned now, though, just as the question of competence was apparent during the second G.W.Bush administration. For all the roses tossed by the media and the Democrats in this country to the new administration, as we are to believe this group is so organized and professional in their hit-the-ground-running style, the wheels are flying off the bus.
Not only has the curtain been pulled back on the poorly managed vetting process of the new people in charge of staffing the place, but now it seems the administration is sorely lacking in basic common courtesy and decorum. On the international stage these two words - courtesy and decorum - are very important. Like class, either you have it or you don't. The position of head of protocol is one that is in dire need of stepping up and guiding the new first couple in the White House. President and Mrs. Obama, while trying desparately to be a part of the glittery, glamourous crowd of the rich and powerful in Washington - including living large and entertaining big at least once a week in the White House, as the President wants to toss around the comparisons to the Great Depression to the current economy - have begun the quiet diplomacy of gift giving to our friends overseas on an incredibly embarrasing note.
When Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his wife visited the White House recently, the British Prime Minister was almost giddy with glee of forging a relationship with the new president. He assumed, rightfully so, that a bond was present between our two countries and we would all continue to work together on the international stage. Silly Prime Minister. His first clue should have been that he was not the first foreign dignitary called by the new president. That honor went to the current president of Palestine.
President Obama returned the bust of Winston Churchill which was displayed in the Oval Office. Winston Churchill was half American, after all. The bust was a gift loaned from former Prime Minister Tony Blair to former President George W. Bush after 9/11/01 as a show of support. He cancelled a joint appearance in the Rose Garden and held only a brief, low energy availability in the White House and this embarrassed our British friends.
For the gift exchange, Prime Minister Brown gave the new president several thoughtful gifts, including a pen holder "made from a Royal Navy vessel that once fought to end the Atlantic slave trade and a first edition of the eight-volume biography of Winston Churchill begun by WInston's son Randolph and completed by Sir Martin Gilbert. Obama paid him back with a stack of Hollywood movies on DVD that Brown could just as easily have ordered from Netflix", said Arthur Herman in a recent column in the New York Post. Mrs. Brown presented the Obama girls with dresses from the top boutique for girls in London along with matching necklaces, and a collection of books by British authors. The Brown boys were given small plastic models of Marine One from the Obamas.
Rich Galen, who writes a column called Mullings on the Internet, is the former press secretary to Newt Gingrich and Washington insider. He brought up an interesting point as all of this drama played out. He pointed to the "Peter Principle" - "In a hierachy every employee tends to rise to his or her level of incompetence", in a recent column. As diplomats around the world scratch their heads and wonder what the new group in the White House is up to, it is Hillary Clinton who is technically in charge of the Gift Division of the Office of Protocol in the State Department. This is the division tasked with coming up with gifts for diplomats and officials during foreign visits. Maybe Hillary wanted to get the first term of Barack Obama off to a shaky start in the gift giving department.
In recent days, even the most ardent Obama fans are beginning to express doubts of the degree of competence of the new administration. Not only from the hiring of lobbyists, though Obama was using the word as though it were a swear word on the campaign trail while claiming he would never hire such low lifes in his administration, but obvious contradictions like bringing in Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Geithner was a part of the former administration's initial bail out program as head of the Federal Reserve in New York. If the Bush policies and actions were destroying the economy, why bring in an archetect of the bail out program to solve the current problems?
From the NY Post:"His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.
The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.
And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role."
No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too."
Saturday, March 14, 2009
You Are Not Alone
During today's meeting of Saturday Morning in America - Houston Chapter - the importance of gathering with like-minded people was acknowledged. Many of the women gathered around the table watched the Glenn Beck program yesterday with the theme of his 9-12 Project.
Viewing parties were held around the country. Viewing parties were also held as far away as Australia. Service men and women in Iraq watched. Some at the gathering this morning attended those, too. One in a Houston area community was attended by the head of the Border Patrol. He encouraged people to support a Houston Police Officer recently shot by an illegal immigrant by attending a rally at Houston City Hall on Tuesday, March 24. This person was a drug kingpin and married to a woman with an even larger presence in drug trafficking from Mexico. The officer shot is in critical condition. He is a twenty plus year veteran who insisted on being the first man through the door during the raid. At 57 years of age, he has a wife and family. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual story for Houston.
We are living in confusing times. We are told the economy is the worst in decades. Then we are told this week, by the same man who did nothing but doom and gloom speeches as he bashed the last administration, that it will be ok and we will recover. Finally he tried to bolster the American people. The stock market has lost more in the first months of his administration than any previous ones but he brushes it off as though it is a common voter tracking poll. He thinks the American people are stupid.
Republicans are rebuilding and recruiting candidates to counter this current Democrat leadership in Washington. Americans don't appreciate being told that there is an agenda to be pushed through quickly while the President is liked by the public. Quick. Quick. Never waste a good crisis, that is the mantra. First it was credited to Rahm Emanuel and then by Hillary Clinton, on an overseas trip speaking to a group of young people. There's some change you can believe in.
Not only is it important for like-minded people to gather and exchange ideas, as well as frustrations, but it is also a place for ideas to take action. New opportunities are coming forth. In Harris County, for example, a day's workshop will be held in April to train future candidates and campaign management. Also, on April 15 there will be a Tax Day Tea Party in downtown Houston with the main Post Office as the location. In May, those interested in the national security issues of our country will be welcomed to a day's presentation from Brigitte Gabriel and her organization, ACT For America.
As the President takes the time to slap Republicans while answering questions with the President of Brazil - telling a "joking" statement that Republicans would like for him to be lost in the Amazon - while he insists he is all about a post partisan America, as Democrat groups around the country form under the umbrella of Unity 09 to work on a permanent Democrat majority in Washington by hateful and misleading commercials - as the President insists he wants to bring the political parties together, the veneer cracks. President Obama is receiving criticism from many on his own side of the aisle now as the realization that the campaign speeches were only that. Talk. Even now he travels with the teleprompter and is fed facts through the screen, unable to garner support with his less than stellar off the cuff answers. Turns out experience governing does matter.
You are not alone.
Viewing parties were held around the country. Viewing parties were also held as far away as Australia. Service men and women in Iraq watched. Some at the gathering this morning attended those, too. One in a Houston area community was attended by the head of the Border Patrol. He encouraged people to support a Houston Police Officer recently shot by an illegal immigrant by attending a rally at Houston City Hall on Tuesday, March 24. This person was a drug kingpin and married to a woman with an even larger presence in drug trafficking from Mexico. The officer shot is in critical condition. He is a twenty plus year veteran who insisted on being the first man through the door during the raid. At 57 years of age, he has a wife and family. Unfortunately, this is not an unusual story for Houston.
We are living in confusing times. We are told the economy is the worst in decades. Then we are told this week, by the same man who did nothing but doom and gloom speeches as he bashed the last administration, that it will be ok and we will recover. Finally he tried to bolster the American people. The stock market has lost more in the first months of his administration than any previous ones but he brushes it off as though it is a common voter tracking poll. He thinks the American people are stupid.
Republicans are rebuilding and recruiting candidates to counter this current Democrat leadership in Washington. Americans don't appreciate being told that there is an agenda to be pushed through quickly while the President is liked by the public. Quick. Quick. Never waste a good crisis, that is the mantra. First it was credited to Rahm Emanuel and then by Hillary Clinton, on an overseas trip speaking to a group of young people. There's some change you can believe in.
Not only is it important for like-minded people to gather and exchange ideas, as well as frustrations, but it is also a place for ideas to take action. New opportunities are coming forth. In Harris County, for example, a day's workshop will be held in April to train future candidates and campaign management. Also, on April 15 there will be a Tax Day Tea Party in downtown Houston with the main Post Office as the location. In May, those interested in the national security issues of our country will be welcomed to a day's presentation from Brigitte Gabriel and her organization, ACT For America.
As the President takes the time to slap Republicans while answering questions with the President of Brazil - telling a "joking" statement that Republicans would like for him to be lost in the Amazon - while he insists he is all about a post partisan America, as Democrat groups around the country form under the umbrella of Unity 09 to work on a permanent Democrat majority in Washington by hateful and misleading commercials - as the President insists he wants to bring the political parties together, the veneer cracks. President Obama is receiving criticism from many on his own side of the aisle now as the realization that the campaign speeches were only that. Talk. Even now he travels with the teleprompter and is fed facts through the screen, unable to garner support with his less than stellar off the cuff answers. Turns out experience governing does matter.
You are not alone.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
From Rush to Eric Cantor - Moving Target
Move over, Rush. The new target of the foursome of James, Paul, Rahm and Stan is Virginia Congressman Eric Cantor.
Rep. Eric Cantor is an up and comer in the Republican party. He is the House Minority Whip and the only Jewish Republican member in the House of Representatives. He is well spoken, intelligent and not afraid to take on the challenge of leading Republicans back into power. The Democrats hate him.
President Obama, continuing on with the disturbing trend of calling out folks in disagreement with him, by name, as he speaks to his adoring crowds, said at a White House summit on entitlement reform last month, "I'm going to keep on talking to Eric Cantor. Someday, sooner or later, he's gong to say, 'Boy, Obama had a good idea.'" That from Politico. See, it's not about the American people and good policy. It's not about disagreement over basic party philosophy. It's all about the President and his "good ideas". Is that the change voters wanted?
David Plouffe, Obama campaign manager now writing a book, wrote in the Washington Post "Rush Limbaugh's voice could be heard in the words of new Republican quarterback Eric Cantor."
In Michigan, Florida and California, union groups are using robocalls telling voters to ask their representatives why they agree with Eric Cantor. They refer to the Republican party as the party of no. Old and outdated taunts, to be sure, and blatantly false, given the fact that Cantor is one who leads in providing members of the House alternatives to vote on when he opposes legislation put forth by Democrats.
That's why they hate him in the White House and in Speaker Pelosi's office. Cantor is not a part of the just say no crowd. He is an emerging leader of the party, mainly due to the fact that he provides alternative voting opportunities.
Americans United for Change - the hateful special interest group funded with union monies and back by George Soros, too - recently stated through its spokesman Jeremy Funk, "it's important to define new faces who emerge on the right." They would like to define Cantor before Cantor is known to more Americans. This group intends to continue the never ending campaign mode of the Obama administration.
Cantor's latest bill addresses foreclosures. It changes tax code provisions on gifts and capital gains, including making it easier for owners to sell investment property. Also, any home buyer who puts down 5% receive an immediate tax credit. Unlike the Obama administration's plan, which deals almost exclusively with first time home buyers, this bill helps all home buyers. And, he doesn't support the bill passed that allows bankruptcy judges to change the terms of a mortgage. Judges will now be allowed to set the terms of a mortgage. Think about that.
The fact is Eric Cantor has found common ground with President Obama, as serious legislators will. He agrees with the push to streamline and computerize health records. He agrees with withdrawing troops from Iraq and the schedule put forward. He agrees with lower mortgage interest rates. He agrees that some large banks should not be allowed to fail.
Cantor sees the Socialist creep in our government. He is a strong voice of loyal opposition. The Democrats hate him and have targeted him, lead by the group out of the White House. Is that the change America needs?
Though Newsweek continues with Obama mania, the current issue with the cover of a piece of tape over Rush Limbaugh's mouth reading "Enough", make no mistake. Rush was the first target in the grand scheme of running a continual campaign for the re-election of Barack Obama. Any Republican rising to lead will be thrown into the mix. George Soros, billionaire from Hungary and former Nazi sympathizer wishing Socialism in the U.S., is only too happy to fund the activities of the haters.
The Democratic National Committee is planning to put up a billboard near Limbaugh's house and is asking for message ideas. The winning slogan will be put on a billboard near Rush's home so that he sees it. Jen O'Malley Dillon, Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee is sending out e-mails asking for votes on the top five suggestions so far. Does she have a bit too much time on her hands?
Given the choice, we will find that Americans prefer a voice who stands strong for American values and beliefs over a Socialist billionaire from Europe funding campaigns against our military leadership and the American taxpayer.
Rep. Eric Cantor is an up and comer in the Republican party. He is the House Minority Whip and the only Jewish Republican member in the House of Representatives. He is well spoken, intelligent and not afraid to take on the challenge of leading Republicans back into power. The Democrats hate him.
President Obama, continuing on with the disturbing trend of calling out folks in disagreement with him, by name, as he speaks to his adoring crowds, said at a White House summit on entitlement reform last month, "I'm going to keep on talking to Eric Cantor. Someday, sooner or later, he's gong to say, 'Boy, Obama had a good idea.'" That from Politico. See, it's not about the American people and good policy. It's not about disagreement over basic party philosophy. It's all about the President and his "good ideas". Is that the change voters wanted?
David Plouffe, Obama campaign manager now writing a book, wrote in the Washington Post "Rush Limbaugh's voice could be heard in the words of new Republican quarterback Eric Cantor."
In Michigan, Florida and California, union groups are using robocalls telling voters to ask their representatives why they agree with Eric Cantor. They refer to the Republican party as the party of no. Old and outdated taunts, to be sure, and blatantly false, given the fact that Cantor is one who leads in providing members of the House alternatives to vote on when he opposes legislation put forth by Democrats.
That's why they hate him in the White House and in Speaker Pelosi's office. Cantor is not a part of the just say no crowd. He is an emerging leader of the party, mainly due to the fact that he provides alternative voting opportunities.
Americans United for Change - the hateful special interest group funded with union monies and back by George Soros, too - recently stated through its spokesman Jeremy Funk, "it's important to define new faces who emerge on the right." They would like to define Cantor before Cantor is known to more Americans. This group intends to continue the never ending campaign mode of the Obama administration.
Cantor's latest bill addresses foreclosures. It changes tax code provisions on gifts and capital gains, including making it easier for owners to sell investment property. Also, any home buyer who puts down 5% receive an immediate tax credit. Unlike the Obama administration's plan, which deals almost exclusively with first time home buyers, this bill helps all home buyers. And, he doesn't support the bill passed that allows bankruptcy judges to change the terms of a mortgage. Judges will now be allowed to set the terms of a mortgage. Think about that.
The fact is Eric Cantor has found common ground with President Obama, as serious legislators will. He agrees with the push to streamline and computerize health records. He agrees with withdrawing troops from Iraq and the schedule put forward. He agrees with lower mortgage interest rates. He agrees that some large banks should not be allowed to fail.
Cantor sees the Socialist creep in our government. He is a strong voice of loyal opposition. The Democrats hate him and have targeted him, lead by the group out of the White House. Is that the change America needs?
Though Newsweek continues with Obama mania, the current issue with the cover of a piece of tape over Rush Limbaugh's mouth reading "Enough", make no mistake. Rush was the first target in the grand scheme of running a continual campaign for the re-election of Barack Obama. Any Republican rising to lead will be thrown into the mix. George Soros, billionaire from Hungary and former Nazi sympathizer wishing Socialism in the U.S., is only too happy to fund the activities of the haters.
The Democratic National Committee is planning to put up a billboard near Limbaugh's house and is asking for message ideas. The winning slogan will be put on a billboard near Rush's home so that he sees it. Jen O'Malley Dillon, Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee is sending out e-mails asking for votes on the top five suggestions so far. Does she have a bit too much time on her hands?
Given the choice, we will find that Americans prefer a voice who stands strong for American values and beliefs over a Socialist billionaire from Europe funding campaigns against our military leadership and the American taxpayer.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Obama Rhetoric Rings Hollow Even to Liberals
The pork laden omnibus spending package is slated for a vote tomorrow in the Senate. Majority Leader Reid pulled it Thursday upon realization that the votes were not there for passage. The embarrassed Leader will bring it back tomorrow, as the government's current funding ends Wednesday. Two Democrat Senators were publicly opposing the bill and gets lots of publicity for it, so the ever growing opposition to the Obama plan to grow the government to even larger proportions continues.
Some Democrats didn't appreciate the public opposition of Senator Bayh, in particular, as he was the sham face of "moderate" support for team Obama as a Midwesterner from Indiana, and some of his colleagues discussed whether or not Bayh should lose some of his earmarks for pet projects as punishment "for betraying the party", as written in The Hill, by writer Alexander Bolton. Betraying the party. Not betraying the country, betraying the party.
While President Obama and his First Lady Michelle party on at the White House between campaign stops around the country and the District of Columbia, some are noticing the unfocused pursuance of agenda. It's a bit much for the President who lectures the successful business people about using corporate jets and luxury trappings while he does the same, with enthusiasm. Even David Gergen, Obama supporter on CNN, said recently, "There is no doubt that his ambition for reforms in other areas do not allow him to give the economy his full attention."
While some supporters claim the 2008 election was proof that liberalism is back and here to stay, the stirrings of opposition claim otherwise. The moderate Democrats in the House of Representatives, the Blue Dog Democrats, are finding their voice. Eleven of them voted with all the Republicans in the House to oppose the spending/stimulus bill. As they continue to go home and listen to the voters they will rely upon to re-elect them, they realize the American public is recovering from the Obama drunken blind support. A large percentage of those who voted for Obama are on record that they were clueless as to his agenda. They just wanted "change" and they wanted to vote for the bi-racial candidate, too. This is hardly a strong mandate for full blown liberalism and a bend to socialism. At this point in the new administration, Obama's popularity rating is only average compared to recent presidents - he is lower than Jimmy Carter, Clinton and both Bushes.
Obama's speeches are beginning to show up as fact-checked. Recently this was looked at from a speech on the spending bill and job creation: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs." According to Fact Check: "This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error." Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of ow many jobs would be lost without the stimulus." Not so reassuring.
The name of President Obama, then Senator Obama, has been erased from the list of earmark cosponsors in the omnibus spending bill. Transparency, anyone?
One Blue Dog Democrat, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) is vocally criticizing the budget for the cut in defense spending. All other areas of the budget receive increases, except the defense department. He remarks "I don't like ti...change is not running up even bigger deficits that George Bush did", as it pertained to the spending bill.
As Mike Allen wrote on Politico.com last week, "Some of Obama's 53 percent of the popular vote was no doubt a rejection of John McCain rather than an embrace of his own ideas. But by treating his victory, combined with Democratic gains in Congress, as an unambiguous ideological mandate, he is betting that others will see it the same way." This is sounded out by the most loyal Obama supporters - those that claim the election was proof that liberalism reigns now.
Instead of jetting around the country in search of future votes during his re-election campaign in 2011, fawning over those living in swing states, it is in the best interests of the country to remain in Washington and show true concern of the economy. Wall Street and the banks are not feeling the sincerity. The stock market has lost ground consistently since the inauguration. No one, other than those making the policies - and even they admit it is all a crap shoot - seems to have a grip on the economic recovery situation. The Treasury Secretary has yet to present his big plan, so highly touted by President Obama that we were told Geithner, tax cheat in residence, was the only person to handle the job.
Rep. Kevin Brady(R-TX), told Geithner, "It looks like somebody's cooking the books." And, budget chief, Peter Orszag while continuing on with the dishonest argument that the omnibus is just business from the previous year and the Bush administration that must be pushed through, admits that including expenditures for the Iraq war as it winds down props up the claims of all the deficit reductions down the line. If it were not so sad, it would almost be amusing at the predictability of hanging the expense of the war on terror with our economic distress. Couldn't have been all the other spending on growing the government and not using the power of the spending veto throughout the previous eight years, could it?
As Charles Krauthammer writes, "Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime."
Economist Robert Samuelson, one of several liberal economists now coming out criticizing the Obama policies, writes, "The gap between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality transcends the budget, as do the consequences. In 2009, the stock market has declined 23.78% (through March 5) says Wilshire Associates. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page blames Obama's policies for all the fall. That's unfair; the economy's deterioration was a big cause. Still, Obama isn't blameless. Confidence (too little) and uncertainty (too much) define this crisis. Obama's double talk reduces the first and raises the second." "Obama is the great pretender. He repeatedly says he's doing things that he isn't trusting his powerful rhetoric to obscure the difference. He has made "responsibility" a personal theme; the budget's cover line is "A New Era of Responsibility". He says the budget begins "making the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal discipline." It doesn't."
Continuing to blame the mess he "inherited" is wearing thin. He has to stop the making of excuses and get on with it. Leadership is needed and we have yet to see it. President Bush is not blameless but he is not the problem now. Democrats allowed the real estate market to crash due to refusal to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - even the New York Times called his idea, "the most significant regulatory overhaul in housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago., as recently quoted in IBDeditorials.com. Obama allows corrupt politicians like Barney Frank to speak out about prosecuting bankers now without any response. Were those complaining that the loyal opposition won't now go along with the socialism agenda of our country the same ones who were hell bent for the previous administration to fail on its desired reforms?
It is well past time for the president to stay in Washington and deal with the continued lack of confidence in his economic recovery plans.
Some Democrats didn't appreciate the public opposition of Senator Bayh, in particular, as he was the sham face of "moderate" support for team Obama as a Midwesterner from Indiana, and some of his colleagues discussed whether or not Bayh should lose some of his earmarks for pet projects as punishment "for betraying the party", as written in The Hill, by writer Alexander Bolton. Betraying the party. Not betraying the country, betraying the party.
While President Obama and his First Lady Michelle party on at the White House between campaign stops around the country and the District of Columbia, some are noticing the unfocused pursuance of agenda. It's a bit much for the President who lectures the successful business people about using corporate jets and luxury trappings while he does the same, with enthusiasm. Even David Gergen, Obama supporter on CNN, said recently, "There is no doubt that his ambition for reforms in other areas do not allow him to give the economy his full attention."
While some supporters claim the 2008 election was proof that liberalism is back and here to stay, the stirrings of opposition claim otherwise. The moderate Democrats in the House of Representatives, the Blue Dog Democrats, are finding their voice. Eleven of them voted with all the Republicans in the House to oppose the spending/stimulus bill. As they continue to go home and listen to the voters they will rely upon to re-elect them, they realize the American public is recovering from the Obama drunken blind support. A large percentage of those who voted for Obama are on record that they were clueless as to his agenda. They just wanted "change" and they wanted to vote for the bi-racial candidate, too. This is hardly a strong mandate for full blown liberalism and a bend to socialism. At this point in the new administration, Obama's popularity rating is only average compared to recent presidents - he is lower than Jimmy Carter, Clinton and both Bushes.
Obama's speeches are beginning to show up as fact-checked. Recently this was looked at from a speech on the spending bill and job creation: "Over the next two years, this plan will save or create 3.5 million jobs." According to Fact Check: "This is a recurrent Obama formulation. But job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. The president's own economists, in a report prepared last month, stated, "It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error." Beyond that, it's unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it's clear when jobs are abolished, there's no economic gauge that tracks job preservation. The estimates are based on economic assumptions of ow many jobs would be lost without the stimulus." Not so reassuring.
The name of President Obama, then Senator Obama, has been erased from the list of earmark cosponsors in the omnibus spending bill. Transparency, anyone?
One Blue Dog Democrat, Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) is vocally criticizing the budget for the cut in defense spending. All other areas of the budget receive increases, except the defense department. He remarks "I don't like ti...change is not running up even bigger deficits that George Bush did", as it pertained to the spending bill.
As Mike Allen wrote on Politico.com last week, "Some of Obama's 53 percent of the popular vote was no doubt a rejection of John McCain rather than an embrace of his own ideas. But by treating his victory, combined with Democratic gains in Congress, as an unambiguous ideological mandate, he is betting that others will see it the same way." This is sounded out by the most loyal Obama supporters - those that claim the election was proof that liberalism reigns now.
Instead of jetting around the country in search of future votes during his re-election campaign in 2011, fawning over those living in swing states, it is in the best interests of the country to remain in Washington and show true concern of the economy. Wall Street and the banks are not feeling the sincerity. The stock market has lost ground consistently since the inauguration. No one, other than those making the policies - and even they admit it is all a crap shoot - seems to have a grip on the economic recovery situation. The Treasury Secretary has yet to present his big plan, so highly touted by President Obama that we were told Geithner, tax cheat in residence, was the only person to handle the job.
Rep. Kevin Brady(R-TX), told Geithner, "It looks like somebody's cooking the books." And, budget chief, Peter Orszag while continuing on with the dishonest argument that the omnibus is just business from the previous year and the Bush administration that must be pushed through, admits that including expenditures for the Iraq war as it winds down props up the claims of all the deficit reductions down the line. If it were not so sad, it would almost be amusing at the predictability of hanging the expense of the war on terror with our economic distress. Couldn't have been all the other spending on growing the government and not using the power of the spending veto throughout the previous eight years, could it?
As Charles Krauthammer writes, "Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime."
Economist Robert Samuelson, one of several liberal economists now coming out criticizing the Obama policies, writes, "The gap between Obama rhetoric and Obama reality transcends the budget, as do the consequences. In 2009, the stock market has declined 23.78% (through March 5) says Wilshire Associates. The Wall Street Journal's editorial page blames Obama's policies for all the fall. That's unfair; the economy's deterioration was a big cause. Still, Obama isn't blameless. Confidence (too little) and uncertainty (too much) define this crisis. Obama's double talk reduces the first and raises the second." "Obama is the great pretender. He repeatedly says he's doing things that he isn't trusting his powerful rhetoric to obscure the difference. He has made "responsibility" a personal theme; the budget's cover line is "A New Era of Responsibility". He says the budget begins "making the tough choices necessary to restore fiscal discipline." It doesn't."
Continuing to blame the mess he "inherited" is wearing thin. He has to stop the making of excuses and get on with it. Leadership is needed and we have yet to see it. President Bush is not blameless but he is not the problem now. Democrats allowed the real estate market to crash due to refusal to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - even the New York Times called his idea, "the most significant regulatory overhaul in housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago., as recently quoted in IBDeditorials.com. Obama allows corrupt politicians like Barney Frank to speak out about prosecuting bankers now without any response. Were those complaining that the loyal opposition won't now go along with the socialism agenda of our country the same ones who were hell bent for the previous administration to fail on its desired reforms?
It is well past time for the president to stay in Washington and deal with the continued lack of confidence in his economic recovery plans.
Sunday, March 08, 2009
Mr. President, Stop Campaigning.
It is interesting that President Obama tells a NYT reporter Friday that Americans shouldn't be fearful over the economy. What has he been doing himself, for more than a year? Doom and gloom. He deliberately painted the worst possible scenario because it benefited his campaign. It is only because the economy went into a strong recession that Obama won the election.
Instead of following the pattern of a previous president that faced huge problems - FDR - and raising the spirits of the American people before insisting everyone get on board with radical agendas. Now one of his most powerful foot soldiers, Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) claims he'll push to prosecute those he thinks are responsible for the economic downturn. He didn't, however, volunteer to put himself on trial. He was a major force behind the bad policies, those that the Bush administration warned about three years ago and Republicans have tried to fix since 1992, not to mention all the campaign monies given to the likes of Frank by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and regional banks.
Wall Street is Main Street. Since the 1990's and the rise of companies encouraging employees to buy into 401k's and retirement plans, over 60% of Americans are stock holders. And, for the President to act as though a daily monitoring of the stock market is meaningless is to deny reality. The stock market is a barometer of the confidence of the American people in its government. After the barrage of doom and gloom for so long for his own advantage, is it any wonder that Americans are nervous about the leadership coming out of Washington? Is it any wonder that Americans hear the president recommend everyone buy stocks now and they simply think, what is this guy talking about? He doesn't instill confidence. He does not lead.
The president appointed a tax evader as his Secretary of Treasury. Geithner is also one who was involved in the economic policy of the previous Bush administration - he was in the New York Reserve - and represents no change in direction. He hasn't produced a working strategy on bank reform. Until the banks are under control, recovery is not possible. Instead, we have a president jetting around the country, campaign style, pushing the socialism of America through health care and raising taxes on the very small business people who will be the driving force in economic recovery and transforming energy policy. Even far left liberals have begun to criticize President Obama for his slow appointments to his economic team. This week, two women took themselves out of nomination for positions in Geithner's treasury department.
Instead of buzzing around the country as he is doing - the president even issued a directive to his staff to schedule at least one "campaign style" event outside of Washington every week - President Obama should stay in the oval office and learn about leadership and governing. His complete lack of experience in governing is showing. He has yet to cross the gulf between voting on legislation and making executive decision while leading the electorate. He has to get out of campaign mode. He has lived in campaign mode for the last four years of his career and it shows now. He is already saying "in my first term" as though he assumes he'll be re-elected. He is only less than 50 days into his administration. Give it a rest already.
Some Democrats have come out against the latest omnibus bill. He is encouraged to veto it due to all the ridiculous ear marks, though we are told there are none. We are told it is just a holdover budget from the last administration. This is de-bunked and Karl Rove wrote of it recently in The Wall Street Journal. Rove was left to bring clarity to the bill since the media wasn't willing to tell the story. "Mr. Obama has only his own lack of engagement and leadership to blame." "Mr. Obama ceded authority to congressional appropriators, who wrote the stimulus bill that is history's largest spending increase. Then Mr. Obama got behind the pork-laden omnibus-spending bill. And Mr. Obama has also proposed $4 trillion in outlays this fiscal year and $3.6 trillion next fiscal year." "If America 'cannot and will not sustain' deficits like Mr. Bush's, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he's flogging?" If the omnibus bill now before the Senate, for which the vote has been postponed due to lack of yes votes, were truly "last year's business" and has to be pushed on through, then the Senate could scrub the overspending and pass that. The fact is that the spending is to provide government services for the next six months. That is the new administration's next six months. The budget goes forward, not backwards.
If President Obama was anyone other than just another far left politician from Chicago, he'd veto the omnibus budget bill. He would live up to his promises to the American voter and not turn a blind eye to ear marks. Plus, he would live up to his promise to allow bills to be online for 5 days prior to Congress voting on them. Where is all the transparency promised?
President Obama ran on bi-partisanship promises and a desire to change the tone in Washington. He has made some odd choices in staff, given these campaign promises. Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, is calling out Republicans on the Sunday talk shows, as though only Republicans have objections to the budget submitted to Congress. "There they go again" he said as a reference to Ronald Reagan and the loyal opposition. He stressed the urgency of health care reform. "We have to get health-care reform done this year." Really? Where did this urgent time table come from? If the administration were an honest broker in change - if the new President was an honest broker in the change mantra - we would be told that the far left knows that health care reform will not be possible to the extents they want with the passage of time. Time is not a friend to a president with a big transforming agenda. The president's popularity will fall and his talk of urgency with his agenda will fade.
Republicans are being portrayed as the party of "no". This is dishonest. John McCain has offered alternatives in the Senate. The Republicans in the House have been shut out completely. Senator Coburn and Senator DeMint have offered amendments to take out the excesses and keep stimulating tax cuts. None have succeeded.
Watching Senator McCain over the course of the past several days as he is interviewed, I can't help but ponder how the agenda would differ. While Republicans agree on reform for the health care industry and in the energy sector, the importance of the small business person would be elevated, not diminished.
It is long past time for President Obama to stop his campaign events and begin to lead.
Instead of following the pattern of a previous president that faced huge problems - FDR - and raising the spirits of the American people before insisting everyone get on board with radical agendas. Now one of his most powerful foot soldiers, Rep Barney Frank (D-MA) claims he'll push to prosecute those he thinks are responsible for the economic downturn. He didn't, however, volunteer to put himself on trial. He was a major force behind the bad policies, those that the Bush administration warned about three years ago and Republicans have tried to fix since 1992, not to mention all the campaign monies given to the likes of Frank by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and regional banks.
Wall Street is Main Street. Since the 1990's and the rise of companies encouraging employees to buy into 401k's and retirement plans, over 60% of Americans are stock holders. And, for the President to act as though a daily monitoring of the stock market is meaningless is to deny reality. The stock market is a barometer of the confidence of the American people in its government. After the barrage of doom and gloom for so long for his own advantage, is it any wonder that Americans are nervous about the leadership coming out of Washington? Is it any wonder that Americans hear the president recommend everyone buy stocks now and they simply think, what is this guy talking about? He doesn't instill confidence. He does not lead.
The president appointed a tax evader as his Secretary of Treasury. Geithner is also one who was involved in the economic policy of the previous Bush administration - he was in the New York Reserve - and represents no change in direction. He hasn't produced a working strategy on bank reform. Until the banks are under control, recovery is not possible. Instead, we have a president jetting around the country, campaign style, pushing the socialism of America through health care and raising taxes on the very small business people who will be the driving force in economic recovery and transforming energy policy. Even far left liberals have begun to criticize President Obama for his slow appointments to his economic team. This week, two women took themselves out of nomination for positions in Geithner's treasury department.
Instead of buzzing around the country as he is doing - the president even issued a directive to his staff to schedule at least one "campaign style" event outside of Washington every week - President Obama should stay in the oval office and learn about leadership and governing. His complete lack of experience in governing is showing. He has yet to cross the gulf between voting on legislation and making executive decision while leading the electorate. He has to get out of campaign mode. He has lived in campaign mode for the last four years of his career and it shows now. He is already saying "in my first term" as though he assumes he'll be re-elected. He is only less than 50 days into his administration. Give it a rest already.
Some Democrats have come out against the latest omnibus bill. He is encouraged to veto it due to all the ridiculous ear marks, though we are told there are none. We are told it is just a holdover budget from the last administration. This is de-bunked and Karl Rove wrote of it recently in The Wall Street Journal. Rove was left to bring clarity to the bill since the media wasn't willing to tell the story. "Mr. Obama has only his own lack of engagement and leadership to blame." "Mr. Obama ceded authority to congressional appropriators, who wrote the stimulus bill that is history's largest spending increase. Then Mr. Obama got behind the pork-laden omnibus-spending bill. And Mr. Obama has also proposed $4 trillion in outlays this fiscal year and $3.6 trillion next fiscal year." "If America 'cannot and will not sustain' deficits like Mr. Bush's, as Mr. Obama said during the campaign, how can Mr. Obama sustain the geometrically larger ones he's flogging?" If the omnibus bill now before the Senate, for which the vote has been postponed due to lack of yes votes, were truly "last year's business" and has to be pushed on through, then the Senate could scrub the overspending and pass that. The fact is that the spending is to provide government services for the next six months. That is the new administration's next six months. The budget goes forward, not backwards.
If President Obama was anyone other than just another far left politician from Chicago, he'd veto the omnibus budget bill. He would live up to his promises to the American voter and not turn a blind eye to ear marks. Plus, he would live up to his promise to allow bills to be online for 5 days prior to Congress voting on them. Where is all the transparency promised?
President Obama ran on bi-partisanship promises and a desire to change the tone in Washington. He has made some odd choices in staff, given these campaign promises. Peter Orszag, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, is calling out Republicans on the Sunday talk shows, as though only Republicans have objections to the budget submitted to Congress. "There they go again" he said as a reference to Ronald Reagan and the loyal opposition. He stressed the urgency of health care reform. "We have to get health-care reform done this year." Really? Where did this urgent time table come from? If the administration were an honest broker in change - if the new President was an honest broker in the change mantra - we would be told that the far left knows that health care reform will not be possible to the extents they want with the passage of time. Time is not a friend to a president with a big transforming agenda. The president's popularity will fall and his talk of urgency with his agenda will fade.
Republicans are being portrayed as the party of "no". This is dishonest. John McCain has offered alternatives in the Senate. The Republicans in the House have been shut out completely. Senator Coburn and Senator DeMint have offered amendments to take out the excesses and keep stimulating tax cuts. None have succeeded.
Watching Senator McCain over the course of the past several days as he is interviewed, I can't help but ponder how the agenda would differ. While Republicans agree on reform for the health care industry and in the energy sector, the importance of the small business person would be elevated, not diminished.
It is long past time for President Obama to stop his campaign events and begin to lead.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
White House Behind Limbaugh Attacks
It all began, as far as most would believe, on January 21, in Palm Beach. Sean Hannity went to Florida to interview Rush Limbaugh and hear his opinions of the newly inaugurated administration. The vast left wing conspiracy, to use a remake of a Clinton era term since they are all back in the Obama White House, was only too happy to take snippets of the interview and spin it to bash Rush Limbaugh.
Turns out, according to Politico, the gang of four that has held conference type calls since the days of the first Clinton presidential campaign and continue with the tradition today, James Carville, Paul Begala, Stan Greenberg, and Rahm Emanuel have planned for this manufactured controversy all along. Their willing cohorts, the media, are egging it on with glee. The hate-filled Democrats must have a target or life has no meaning. No more Bush to be deranged over, no more Karl Rove or Dick Cheney to wish out loud to be frog marched out of the White House, so their agreed upon foil was Limbaugh.
Greenberg - married to a member of the House - and Carville are partners in a polling company, Democracy Corps. Back in October the foundation of the current controversy was set by these two rabid partisan Democrats. They found, through their polling, that Limbaugh is unpopular with young voters under the age of 40. Since then, the strategy was to prop Limbaugh up as though he leads the Republican party. Especially on appearances on CNN and through mouthpiece Emanuel, the fix was in. Why else would the president name Limbaugh in particular as one who shouldn't be listened to by Republicans in Congress if his agenda was to be passed? Didn't anyone find that a bit odd? Since when does a president call out specific names outside of the political electorate as those to be avoided? Did George Bush call out George Soros publicly?
Limbaugh's interview with Hannity was picked apart by the Democrat cabol and they pushed the soundbite of Limbaugh voicing his hope that Obama's policies fail. Somehow this is a big shocker that Limbaugh doesn't support Obama's socialization of the American economy. The snippets run are disingenuous and to be expected by this gang of four. Greenburg was on George Stephanopoulos' Sunday morning show - George being a member of the daily chats with the inner four - and Karl Rove was on the panel, too. Greenburg all but spit on Rove.
The riff goes that Limbaugh said he doesn't want the President to succeed. It's all about the President and not the policies. So, it went from there and the media didn't bother to point to the distinction. Again, journalism is dead.
Michael Steele is the very popular newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee. He was dragged into this bickering by answering a question on a talk show hosted by a celebrity - on CNN - who now poses as a political commenter. Michael Steele, answering a question if Limbaugh is the "de facto leader of the Republican party" said "No, he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party." He went on to describe Limbaugh as an entertainer who can be incendiary and it sometimes gets ugly.
The left was orgasmic and the right went nuts. Both got it wrong. The longer this plays out, the more digging into the background continues, the worse it looks for the White House - the president who was to be "post partisan" and "change the tone in Washington". The White House that said, after appointing the hyper partisan Emanuel as Chief of Staff (and another Chicago politician) that he is quite apt at reaching across the aisle to get legislation passed.
The right was outraged at a perceived slap at their beloved Rush. The fact is, Rush is an entertainer. He is the very loud voice of the most conservative wing of the Republican party. He has a huge audience and he has been at it on a national stage for 20 years. The left hates his success. Liberal talk radio consistently fails and there is now talk that the Fairness Doctrine will be brought back into play now that Washington is led by an all far left Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House.
Rush Limbaugh is not a leader of the Republican Party. He doesn't raise money for the party. He doesn't write legislation. He doesn't endorse candidates in primary elections. He has not held political office. And, he does resort to some bomb throwing as a way to make a point. It's a part of his act. He has sharp elbows. His fans love him. His enemies want him destroyed.
Steele has apologized to Limbaugh for the whole episode. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs thought it proper to note this fact at the end of his briefing yesterday at the White House - "I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party", grinning as he said it. David Plouffe, inner circle guy (Chicago) of Obama published an op-ed in the Washington Post chiding "Republicans for being paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader", according to Politico.com. A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy, states the article.
Limbaugh was a huge hit during his speech to CPAC over the weekend. The attendance at the annual event was at record numbers, double last year's. The base of the party is fired up and the White House is worried. The White House is determined to blame Limbaugh for the failures of their announced policies to bring confidence to the American consumer. Wall Street has no confidence in the Obama policies.
AFL-CIO has a lavish winter conference retreat in South Beach. They are the union honchos funding Americans United for Change. The commercials run against Republicans are misleading and nasty in tone. Shouldn't they be working on a more efficient way of governing unions? Americans United for Change is working closely with the White House and the DNC. Tim Kaine, touted for his even keeled outreach to both sides as he governed the State of Virginia and then hand picked as DNC chairman by Obama, ridiculed Steele for his apology to Limbaugh. Brad Woodhouse runs Americans United for Change and runs the anti-Limbaugh ad on television. Woodhouse is set to become communications director at the DNC.
The Obamas enjoy entertaining like it's 1999 in the White House, usually on Wednesday nights. The swells in Washington think this is just great - the Obamas are carrying on their Chicago lifestyle where they were known as quite the social butterflies. Expensive designer beef, top notch Hollywood entertainment, no holds barred - hey, aren't we in the worst recession in decades? Or, is that just for the little people?
Americans are beginning to connect the dots.
Turns out, according to Politico, the gang of four that has held conference type calls since the days of the first Clinton presidential campaign and continue with the tradition today, James Carville, Paul Begala, Stan Greenberg, and Rahm Emanuel have planned for this manufactured controversy all along. Their willing cohorts, the media, are egging it on with glee. The hate-filled Democrats must have a target or life has no meaning. No more Bush to be deranged over, no more Karl Rove or Dick Cheney to wish out loud to be frog marched out of the White House, so their agreed upon foil was Limbaugh.
Greenberg - married to a member of the House - and Carville are partners in a polling company, Democracy Corps. Back in October the foundation of the current controversy was set by these two rabid partisan Democrats. They found, through their polling, that Limbaugh is unpopular with young voters under the age of 40. Since then, the strategy was to prop Limbaugh up as though he leads the Republican party. Especially on appearances on CNN and through mouthpiece Emanuel, the fix was in. Why else would the president name Limbaugh in particular as one who shouldn't be listened to by Republicans in Congress if his agenda was to be passed? Didn't anyone find that a bit odd? Since when does a president call out specific names outside of the political electorate as those to be avoided? Did George Bush call out George Soros publicly?
Limbaugh's interview with Hannity was picked apart by the Democrat cabol and they pushed the soundbite of Limbaugh voicing his hope that Obama's policies fail. Somehow this is a big shocker that Limbaugh doesn't support Obama's socialization of the American economy. The snippets run are disingenuous and to be expected by this gang of four. Greenburg was on George Stephanopoulos' Sunday morning show - George being a member of the daily chats with the inner four - and Karl Rove was on the panel, too. Greenburg all but spit on Rove.
The riff goes that Limbaugh said he doesn't want the President to succeed. It's all about the President and not the policies. So, it went from there and the media didn't bother to point to the distinction. Again, journalism is dead.
Michael Steele is the very popular newly elected chairman of the Republican National Committee. He was dragged into this bickering by answering a question on a talk show hosted by a celebrity - on CNN - who now poses as a political commenter. Michael Steele, answering a question if Limbaugh is the "de facto leader of the Republican party" said "No, he's not. I'm the de facto leader of the Republican party." He went on to describe Limbaugh as an entertainer who can be incendiary and it sometimes gets ugly.
The left was orgasmic and the right went nuts. Both got it wrong. The longer this plays out, the more digging into the background continues, the worse it looks for the White House - the president who was to be "post partisan" and "change the tone in Washington". The White House that said, after appointing the hyper partisan Emanuel as Chief of Staff (and another Chicago politician) that he is quite apt at reaching across the aisle to get legislation passed.
The right was outraged at a perceived slap at their beloved Rush. The fact is, Rush is an entertainer. He is the very loud voice of the most conservative wing of the Republican party. He has a huge audience and he has been at it on a national stage for 20 years. The left hates his success. Liberal talk radio consistently fails and there is now talk that the Fairness Doctrine will be brought back into play now that Washington is led by an all far left Democrat controlled House, Senate and White House.
Rush Limbaugh is not a leader of the Republican Party. He doesn't raise money for the party. He doesn't write legislation. He doesn't endorse candidates in primary elections. He has not held political office. And, he does resort to some bomb throwing as a way to make a point. It's a part of his act. He has sharp elbows. His fans love him. His enemies want him destroyed.
Steele has apologized to Limbaugh for the whole episode. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs thought it proper to note this fact at the end of his briefing yesterday at the White House - "I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party", grinning as he said it. David Plouffe, inner circle guy (Chicago) of Obama published an op-ed in the Washington Post chiding "Republicans for being paralyzed with fear of crossing their leader", according to Politico.com. A senior White House aide has been tasked with helping to guide the Limbaugh strategy, states the article.
Limbaugh was a huge hit during his speech to CPAC over the weekend. The attendance at the annual event was at record numbers, double last year's. The base of the party is fired up and the White House is worried. The White House is determined to blame Limbaugh for the failures of their announced policies to bring confidence to the American consumer. Wall Street has no confidence in the Obama policies.
AFL-CIO has a lavish winter conference retreat in South Beach. They are the union honchos funding Americans United for Change. The commercials run against Republicans are misleading and nasty in tone. Shouldn't they be working on a more efficient way of governing unions? Americans United for Change is working closely with the White House and the DNC. Tim Kaine, touted for his even keeled outreach to both sides as he governed the State of Virginia and then hand picked as DNC chairman by Obama, ridiculed Steele for his apology to Limbaugh. Brad Woodhouse runs Americans United for Change and runs the anti-Limbaugh ad on television. Woodhouse is set to become communications director at the DNC.
The Obamas enjoy entertaining like it's 1999 in the White House, usually on Wednesday nights. The swells in Washington think this is just great - the Obamas are carrying on their Chicago lifestyle where they were known as quite the social butterflies. Expensive designer beef, top notch Hollywood entertainment, no holds barred - hey, aren't we in the worst recession in decades? Or, is that just for the little people?
Americans are beginning to connect the dots.
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Cornyn's Call to Republicans
Senator John Cornyn is doing some heavy lifting in Washington, D.C. to help rebuild the Republican party. His task, as National Republican Senatorial Committee Chair is to recruit and retain Republicans to win Senate seats. It's as simple as that.
The complicated part is recruiting candidates. Senator Cornyn, a conservative from Texas, is a realist when it comes to recruitment. He is in the Ronald Reagan mode of "I would rather have a Republican that would vote with me 80 percent of the time than a liberal Democrat voting with me 0 percent of the time." This is causing a bit of heartburn among those posing as purists in the GOP.
Senator Cornyn is urging conservative outreach to Hispanics because they are the most conservative voters in the country and are a good fit with Republicans both on social values and work ethic. "It's critical that our candidates fit their states if they're going to win." This quote appeared in thehill.com recently and included this one, too - "I understand when people are occasionally frustrated with the way some of my colleagues vote. I am too. But a circular firing squad within our party is no solution. We must broaden our party and increase our appeal among groups that share our values but don't necessarily identify as conservatives or vote consistently as Republicans."
"Ninety percent of the game is to recruit candidates who can communicate our principles, who work hard and who can connect with voters in their states. And the NRSC can offer strong candidates the tools and resources they need to win."
In Politico, Cornyn said, "Reaching out to these people does not mean watering down our rhetoric. "Reaching out does mean getting out there and meeting these folks."
In order to grow the party, it is in everyone's best interests to broaden our horizons. To expect conservatives to win elections if less than half of the population of voters relates to the message is to cover ears and shut eyes to the political realities in America. The much referenced Reagan knew this. He embraced outreach to everyone and realized it does not mean loss of political purity.
Those so quick to quote Reagan and insist if only the Republican party went to a rigid litmus test for candidates, then victory would be there. To lob the term "RINO" is to be narrow minded in thought. To expect only those who agree with your own opinions 100% as truly conservative is an impossible standard. Is there anyone who agrees with anyone else 100% of the time? Why expect a large group of people to meet that mark?
Stakes are high. America is on a disaster course with complete Democrat leadership in Washington. Blue Dog Democrats are the Obama administration's throne in its side. These politicians bring future Republican votes.
Every vote counts.
The complicated part is recruiting candidates. Senator Cornyn, a conservative from Texas, is a realist when it comes to recruitment. He is in the Ronald Reagan mode of "I would rather have a Republican that would vote with me 80 percent of the time than a liberal Democrat voting with me 0 percent of the time." This is causing a bit of heartburn among those posing as purists in the GOP.
Senator Cornyn is urging conservative outreach to Hispanics because they are the most conservative voters in the country and are a good fit with Republicans both on social values and work ethic. "It's critical that our candidates fit their states if they're going to win." This quote appeared in thehill.com recently and included this one, too - "I understand when people are occasionally frustrated with the way some of my colleagues vote. I am too. But a circular firing squad within our party is no solution. We must broaden our party and increase our appeal among groups that share our values but don't necessarily identify as conservatives or vote consistently as Republicans."
"Ninety percent of the game is to recruit candidates who can communicate our principles, who work hard and who can connect with voters in their states. And the NRSC can offer strong candidates the tools and resources they need to win."
In Politico, Cornyn said, "Reaching out to these people does not mean watering down our rhetoric. "Reaching out does mean getting out there and meeting these folks."
In order to grow the party, it is in everyone's best interests to broaden our horizons. To expect conservatives to win elections if less than half of the population of voters relates to the message is to cover ears and shut eyes to the political realities in America. The much referenced Reagan knew this. He embraced outreach to everyone and realized it does not mean loss of political purity.
Those so quick to quote Reagan and insist if only the Republican party went to a rigid litmus test for candidates, then victory would be there. To lob the term "RINO" is to be narrow minded in thought. To expect only those who agree with your own opinions 100% as truly conservative is an impossible standard. Is there anyone who agrees with anyone else 100% of the time? Why expect a large group of people to meet that mark?
Stakes are high. America is on a disaster course with complete Democrat leadership in Washington. Blue Dog Democrats are the Obama administration's throne in its side. These politicians bring future Republican votes.
Every vote counts.
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
Senator Cornyn Takes Role as Watchdog
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is joining a working group which serves as a watchdog over implementation of the economic spending bill. The group is tasked with monitoring waste, fraud, and abuse. They will bring any signs to the attention of Congress, the Administration and the American people. Also on the panel are Sen. John Thune (R-SD), Rep Eric Cantor (R-VA) and others from the House and Senate.
Senator Cornyn issued a press release:
"The stimulus was signed into law and the funds are already making their way to the states. While I did not vote for the plan, it is now public law and it will use billions of Texas taxpayer dollars. The economy must be revived, and I want this plan to work. But in order for it to work, we must hold those responsible for distributing the funds accountable."
"The President told mayors he will 'call them out' if they are wasteful with the stimulus funds they receive. Vice President Biden, who has been tasked with overseeing the implementation of the stimulus, has said he will be a 'bit of a pain in the neck' and will use the media to 'embarrass them for not doing what they're suppose to."
"Frankly, this slap-on-the-wrist approach to monitoring the implementation of more than $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars is a far cry from the kind of accountability Texas taxpayers are expecting. If the stimulus bill had not been crafted behind closed doors, void of bipartisan input and tangible accountability measures, we probably would not need the watchdog group we are launching today."
"But this is not the case. It would be foolish to sit back and cross our fingers, hoping that every agency and entity across the country is going to behave responsibly and spend these funds fairly, or to expect they even have the manpower needed to carry out the distribution of the funds."
"Take the Department of Energy for example. According to recent news reports, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced his intention to quickly disburse $32.7 billion in stimulus grants and $130 billion in loans. In almost the same breath, the Energy Department's Inspector General issued a report citing a personnel shortage in the office that processes funding applications. The IG wrote, "we recognize that the goals of expediency and accountability may prove difficult to fully reconcile."
:The working group my colleagues and I are launching today will aggressively oversee how taxpayer dollars are being spent and not only identify instances of waste or abuse, but call for Congressional hearings and action to root out abuse and correct it. It is our hope this group will help to ensure the stimulus funds are being disbursed for initiatives that will have a direct, positive effect on the health of our nation's economy."
Senator Cornyn issued a press release:
"The stimulus was signed into law and the funds are already making their way to the states. While I did not vote for the plan, it is now public law and it will use billions of Texas taxpayer dollars. The economy must be revived, and I want this plan to work. But in order for it to work, we must hold those responsible for distributing the funds accountable."
"The President told mayors he will 'call them out' if they are wasteful with the stimulus funds they receive. Vice President Biden, who has been tasked with overseeing the implementation of the stimulus, has said he will be a 'bit of a pain in the neck' and will use the media to 'embarrass them for not doing what they're suppose to."
"Frankly, this slap-on-the-wrist approach to monitoring the implementation of more than $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars is a far cry from the kind of accountability Texas taxpayers are expecting. If the stimulus bill had not been crafted behind closed doors, void of bipartisan input and tangible accountability measures, we probably would not need the watchdog group we are launching today."
"But this is not the case. It would be foolish to sit back and cross our fingers, hoping that every agency and entity across the country is going to behave responsibly and spend these funds fairly, or to expect they even have the manpower needed to carry out the distribution of the funds."
"Take the Department of Energy for example. According to recent news reports, Energy Secretary Steven Chu announced his intention to quickly disburse $32.7 billion in stimulus grants and $130 billion in loans. In almost the same breath, the Energy Department's Inspector General issued a report citing a personnel shortage in the office that processes funding applications. The IG wrote, "we recognize that the goals of expediency and accountability may prove difficult to fully reconcile."
:The working group my colleagues and I are launching today will aggressively oversee how taxpayer dollars are being spent and not only identify instances of waste or abuse, but call for Congressional hearings and action to root out abuse and correct it. It is our hope this group will help to ensure the stimulus funds are being disbursed for initiatives that will have a direct, positive effect on the health of our nation's economy."
Sunday, March 01, 2009
Rick Perry Opens Bag of Dirty Tricks
"Gov. Rick Perry's re-election campaign has been asking Dallas City Hall for information concerning rival Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson and her husband, a signal that the campaign could turn personal." That from an article by the AP on the Houston Chronicle's website.
Senator Hutchinson's husband, Ray, is a successful Dallas bond attorney. Perry's campaign has filed open records requests all across the state, according to the article, on a fishing expedition into his business dealings. They claim the campaign is interested in determining if he has benefited from his wife's work in the Senate.
Ray Hutchinson's response was to label the search as "stupid". "I don't know what she does. I don't communicate with her staff," he said.
Perry's spokesperson, Mark Miner, is fond of using a nickname popular with the Perry campaign for Senator Hutchinson - "Senator Bailout". Hutchinson's campaign manager, Rick Wiley, credits Perry's low poll numbers as the reason for the nasty turn.
Recently, in Texas Monthly, Paul Burka wrote a detailed comparison between Perry and Hutchinson as they will be competing for the Republican nomination for Governor of Texas. He likened it to the match between former Governor Ann Richards and George W. Bush in 1994.
Burka writes, "Who votes in a Republican primary? Texas does not require registration by party, so anyone can vote in either party's primary. In practice, however, primary voters tend to be the party faithful - the ideologues and the activists who seldom miss an election. From the fifties through the seventies, when the Democratic party dominated Texas and the Republican party was small and ineffective, Republicans frequently voted in the Democratic primary rather than their own to ensure that the state's leaders would be conservative. In a Perry -Hutchinson primary, without a serious Democratic race for governor, both Perry and Hutchinson would likely reach out to Democrats to cross party lines: rural conservatives for Perry and urban and suburban moderates for Hutchinson."
"Two members of the same party could hardly have more divergent views. Perry began his political career as a Democratic state legislator and became a Republican in 1989 t run for agriculture commissioner. He is the kind of convert who, as the saying goes, is more Catholic than the pope. His support for a bill that would authorize "Choose Life" license plates will help him amass political capital during the current legislative session. Hutchinson supports a woman's right to choose in select circumstances, but she doesn't call herself pro-choice."
"Hutchinson takes a more traditional approach to public policy." On spending, Hutchinson thinks of it as investment in the future. Her focus would be "funding for public schools, more flagship universities to stop 'brain drain' and improvements in public health."
From the time Senator Hutchinson voiced the formation of her exploration committee, she has polled comfortably ahead of Governor Perry. This is why the Perry campaign will ratchet up the negative attacks. By going after the Senator and her husband in personal terms, Perry reinforces all that voters are looking to change. Senator Hutchinson is known for her calm and warm personal approach to voters.
If Rick Perry were to win re-election, he would set a record for longest serving Governor for the state of Texas. His campaign intends to paint Hutchinson as less than conservative in politics. Perry's strongest negative is his extreme partisanship. His low poll numbers reflect that, too.
Senator Hutchinson has some of the strongest ratings from conservative alliances in Washington, D.C. She consistently ranks high in her conservative voting record.
Governor Perry may want to re-think his strategy.
Senator Hutchinson's husband, Ray, is a successful Dallas bond attorney. Perry's campaign has filed open records requests all across the state, according to the article, on a fishing expedition into his business dealings. They claim the campaign is interested in determining if he has benefited from his wife's work in the Senate.
Ray Hutchinson's response was to label the search as "stupid". "I don't know what she does. I don't communicate with her staff," he said.
Perry's spokesperson, Mark Miner, is fond of using a nickname popular with the Perry campaign for Senator Hutchinson - "Senator Bailout". Hutchinson's campaign manager, Rick Wiley, credits Perry's low poll numbers as the reason for the nasty turn.
Recently, in Texas Monthly, Paul Burka wrote a detailed comparison between Perry and Hutchinson as they will be competing for the Republican nomination for Governor of Texas. He likened it to the match between former Governor Ann Richards and George W. Bush in 1994.
Burka writes, "Who votes in a Republican primary? Texas does not require registration by party, so anyone can vote in either party's primary. In practice, however, primary voters tend to be the party faithful - the ideologues and the activists who seldom miss an election. From the fifties through the seventies, when the Democratic party dominated Texas and the Republican party was small and ineffective, Republicans frequently voted in the Democratic primary rather than their own to ensure that the state's leaders would be conservative. In a Perry -Hutchinson primary, without a serious Democratic race for governor, both Perry and Hutchinson would likely reach out to Democrats to cross party lines: rural conservatives for Perry and urban and suburban moderates for Hutchinson."
"Two members of the same party could hardly have more divergent views. Perry began his political career as a Democratic state legislator and became a Republican in 1989 t run for agriculture commissioner. He is the kind of convert who, as the saying goes, is more Catholic than the pope. His support for a bill that would authorize "Choose Life" license plates will help him amass political capital during the current legislative session. Hutchinson supports a woman's right to choose in select circumstances, but she doesn't call herself pro-choice."
"Hutchinson takes a more traditional approach to public policy." On spending, Hutchinson thinks of it as investment in the future. Her focus would be "funding for public schools, more flagship universities to stop 'brain drain' and improvements in public health."
From the time Senator Hutchinson voiced the formation of her exploration committee, she has polled comfortably ahead of Governor Perry. This is why the Perry campaign will ratchet up the negative attacks. By going after the Senator and her husband in personal terms, Perry reinforces all that voters are looking to change. Senator Hutchinson is known for her calm and warm personal approach to voters.
If Rick Perry were to win re-election, he would set a record for longest serving Governor for the state of Texas. His campaign intends to paint Hutchinson as less than conservative in politics. Perry's strongest negative is his extreme partisanship. His low poll numbers reflect that, too.
Senator Hutchinson has some of the strongest ratings from conservative alliances in Washington, D.C. She consistently ranks high in her conservative voting record.
Governor Perry may want to re-think his strategy.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Tea Party Houston
A CNBC Business News reporter recently started a groundswell of grass root support as the loyal opposition organizes to protest the economic takeover of the American way of life. As the president presented his budget to the public yesterday - but took no questions from reporters - we are only just now realizing exactly what the term 'change' means to a perceived liberal mandate.
Rick Santelli reports live from the trading floor in Chicago Board of Trade. He focuses on interest rates, foreign exchange and the Federal Reserve. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois and he has been a member of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. Recently, Mr. Santelli had a minute or two of air time and put it to use in his form of protesting the increasing levels of the bailout mentality in Washington. And, as he grew more and more dramatic in protest, rant style, he incurred the support of others on the trading floor. They cheered him.
The next day, during the White House press briefing, Press Secretary Gibbs took shots at the intelligence and motives of Mr. Santelli. It was a major punk moment for Gibbs but it is the Chicago way. Instead of refuting facts, Gibbs went personal. Change, Chicago style.
After all, what would a guy who began his career trading on the floor in Chicago back in 1979 know about markets and government intervention? He joined CNBC in 1999.
Which brings us to today. Today is Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. Can't wait to hear the intellectual lobbing of Gibbs about a grassroots operation launched by regular everyday people. You know, the ones who will be stuck paying the price of the Obama administration's enormous power grab of our government. The very folks condemning the Bush administration for perceived Executive Office power grabs over the war on terror now do the same using our economic system. Socialism 101.
Organized online, Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is a reaction to the administration's slap to Mr. Santelli and the American people begging for common sense in Washington. Some large groups on line, such as Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, the #DontGo Movement, Americans for Tax Reform, the Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine heeded the call and joined forces. Cities across the country will witness peaceful, well attended protests of the expansion of government into all our lives.
Today, February 27, 2009 at 12:00 PM EST, those unable to attend a protest will be able to connect through Twitter.
Here in Houston the Tea Party will be at Fondren Green at Discovery Green Park. It will be staged right in front of the Amphitheatre. A strong turnout is expected. All are encouraged to bring a lunch, a sign to hold and enjoy the gathering. A modern day version of the Boston Tea Party.
Remember, dissent is patriotic.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a statement after the president's recent address to a joint session of Congress: "After last year's State of the Union, then-candidate Barack Obama asked the nation to imagine a time when a President's agenda would draw standing ovations from both sides of the aisle. That sort of bipartisanship is an admirable goal--one that unfortunately continues to elude Washington. The Democratic leadership in Congress must be willing to work with Republican to stop out-of-control spending, promote the creation of jobs, and to keep our troops properly funded."
"I am more confident than ever that the American people will stand up for the principles our nation was founded on and will hold their representatives accountable to overcome the challenges that his nation faces."
Nationwide Chicago Tea Party.
Rick Santelli reports live from the trading floor in Chicago Board of Trade. He focuses on interest rates, foreign exchange and the Federal Reserve. He is a graduate of the University of Illinois and he has been a member of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange and the Chicago Board of Trade. Recently, Mr. Santelli had a minute or two of air time and put it to use in his form of protesting the increasing levels of the bailout mentality in Washington. And, as he grew more and more dramatic in protest, rant style, he incurred the support of others on the trading floor. They cheered him.
The next day, during the White House press briefing, Press Secretary Gibbs took shots at the intelligence and motives of Mr. Santelli. It was a major punk moment for Gibbs but it is the Chicago way. Instead of refuting facts, Gibbs went personal. Change, Chicago style.
After all, what would a guy who began his career trading on the floor in Chicago back in 1979 know about markets and government intervention? He joined CNBC in 1999.
Which brings us to today. Today is Nationwide Chicago Tea Party. Can't wait to hear the intellectual lobbing of Gibbs about a grassroots operation launched by regular everyday people. You know, the ones who will be stuck paying the price of the Obama administration's enormous power grab of our government. The very folks condemning the Bush administration for perceived Executive Office power grabs over the war on terror now do the same using our economic system. Socialism 101.
Organized online, Nationwide Chicago Tea Party is a reaction to the administration's slap to Mr. Santelli and the American people begging for common sense in Washington. Some large groups on line, such as Top Conservatives on Twitter, Smart Girl Politics, the #DontGo Movement, Americans for Tax Reform, the Heartland Institute, and American Spectator Magazine heeded the call and joined forces. Cities across the country will witness peaceful, well attended protests of the expansion of government into all our lives.
Today, February 27, 2009 at 12:00 PM EST, those unable to attend a protest will be able to connect through Twitter.
Here in Houston the Tea Party will be at Fondren Green at Discovery Green Park. It will be staged right in front of the Amphitheatre. A strong turnout is expected. All are encouraged to bring a lunch, a sign to hold and enjoy the gathering. A modern day version of the Boston Tea Party.
Remember, dissent is patriotic.
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released a statement after the president's recent address to a joint session of Congress: "After last year's State of the Union, then-candidate Barack Obama asked the nation to imagine a time when a President's agenda would draw standing ovations from both sides of the aisle. That sort of bipartisanship is an admirable goal--one that unfortunately continues to elude Washington. The Democratic leadership in Congress must be willing to work with Republican to stop out-of-control spending, promote the creation of jobs, and to keep our troops properly funded."
"I am more confident than ever that the American people will stand up for the principles our nation was founded on and will hold their representatives accountable to overcome the challenges that his nation faces."
Nationwide Chicago Tea Party.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Council Rebukes Mayor Bill White in Houston
Following suit with the Democrat in the White House, Houston Mayor Bill White almost got away with the taxpayers of the city of Houston bailing out some here who would like to purchase a home but have a credit score too low for approval. As unbelievable as it sounds, the scam is true.
Mayor Bill White has bigger political ambitions for when he is term limited out as mayor of the nation's fourth largest city. He is a former deputy energy secretary during the Clinton administration and he is a Democrat hoping to win election to the seat being vacated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
White decided to run for the U.S. Senate rather than Governor of the State of Texas when Senator Hutchinson made her intentions clear that she will run for Governor. White knows he can't win against her so he decided a seat in the Senate would be good. He will face strong Republican opposition for the seat, however. Several strong contenders have made it known they are running - including a popular black Republican, Michael Williams, currently Railroad Commissioner. Despite the name of his title, the Railroad Commissioner does not run the railroads, he is in charge of energy policy.
So, while Mayor White was back slapping and glad handing in Washington, D.C. for the Mayor's conference, he slipped in a topic on the Houston City Council agenda that would have Houston city taxpayers footing the bill for low income folks to buy a house. He called it "The Credit Score Enhancement Program" and it would provide $3,000 grants for people who were just short of an acceptable credit score number for a traditional mortgage. The 'grants' would be used to pay off debt balances so that their credit scores could rise.
The City of Houston wanted to pick the winners and losers, just like the President wants to pick winners and losers with the federal bailouts on the backs of "the rich". Rich is a relative term. Those making $250,000 in Houston are not considered rich. Houston has a lower cost of living than other major cities but even here it takes more to be "rich".
Yesterday on a financial business show, the woman who represents my district on the Houston City Council, Pam Holm, appeared to congratulate the citizens of Houston who rose up and said no to this madness. "I do not understand how we can ever justify spending taxpayer dollars to pay somebody's credit card," She said. "I don't understand how it can be even considered to come up. I am truly embarrassed. I think it shows poor leadership." The "poor leadership" part of the remark truly perked up ears here, as it is very rare for a member of City Council to openly criticize the mayor. Those surprised by Holm's remarks have not been in her company. She is a member of my local Republican Women group and she is a strong advocate for her district. She is a tireless worker and she is not bashful to express an opinion. At a recent District meeting for state Republican women, I heard her announce her intention to run for city Comptroller. Our current Comptroller, Houston's first openly gay female politician, is running for mayor.
The mayor had to back off his plan to use the 'grants', to be taken from monies set aside for homeowner repairs after Hurricane Ike damage, and then feigned surprise that the motion had made it to City Council's agenda. That is completely crazy. The mayor sets the agenda and council members only vote or offer amendments. They have no agenda setting privileges. And, White was conveniently in Washington D.C. while the meeting was conducted. Cowardly at best.
Citizens were outraged and the e-mails began. One council member spoke of a voter that mailed him a bill and told him to pay it. The mayor finally admitted that he may have put too much pressure on his Housing Director to help put home buyers in the areas identified as "Houston Hope" areas. These are neighborhoods set aside to be revitalized by the city. Applicants can't earn more than 80 percent of the area's median income. The mayor blamed the city's Department of Housing and Community Development.
White claimed the monies would come from the $444,000 leftover from the city's $1.5 million appropriation for emergency home and roof repairs. It is quite a stretch of the imagination to believe there is money left over and no one in need.
The city has provided grants for down payments and for closing costs for 872 families since 2005. Incredible as that sounds, it is a fact. The Housing Director claims only one family has had a foreclosure from those receiving this benefit. Of course, he works for the mayor. The recently embarrassed mayor.
This scheme made national news. Fortunately for the people of Houston who pay their taxes and their bills, a light shined on the proposal. It is time for any arm of government - whether city, county, state or federal to stop with the picking of winners and losers.
It is hard to believe this scam from Mayor White was anything more than a pander to the lower income voter in hopes of support as he runs for higher office. Our mayoral races are billed as non-partisan but it is always clear which party is represented. White is a Democrat.
Do not think this disapproval comes solely from Republicans. It was rejected by all political stripes. It is a shame the mayor has this blot on his record. He has been widely popular throughout the city. I voted for his re-election based on his job performance after Hurricane Katrina. He worked with the county president - a Republican - and gave a place of refuge to the people of Louisiana. The city of Houston is known for its generosity to others. This was reinforced at that time here and abroad.
Houston, we almost had another problem. Mission accomplished. And, I am proud to be represented by Pam Holm on the Houston City Council.
Anyone ready for a tea party?
Mayor Bill White has bigger political ambitions for when he is term limited out as mayor of the nation's fourth largest city. He is a former deputy energy secretary during the Clinton administration and he is a Democrat hoping to win election to the seat being vacated by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson.
White decided to run for the U.S. Senate rather than Governor of the State of Texas when Senator Hutchinson made her intentions clear that she will run for Governor. White knows he can't win against her so he decided a seat in the Senate would be good. He will face strong Republican opposition for the seat, however. Several strong contenders have made it known they are running - including a popular black Republican, Michael Williams, currently Railroad Commissioner. Despite the name of his title, the Railroad Commissioner does not run the railroads, he is in charge of energy policy.
So, while Mayor White was back slapping and glad handing in Washington, D.C. for the Mayor's conference, he slipped in a topic on the Houston City Council agenda that would have Houston city taxpayers footing the bill for low income folks to buy a house. He called it "The Credit Score Enhancement Program" and it would provide $3,000 grants for people who were just short of an acceptable credit score number for a traditional mortgage. The 'grants' would be used to pay off debt balances so that their credit scores could rise.
The City of Houston wanted to pick the winners and losers, just like the President wants to pick winners and losers with the federal bailouts on the backs of "the rich". Rich is a relative term. Those making $250,000 in Houston are not considered rich. Houston has a lower cost of living than other major cities but even here it takes more to be "rich".
Yesterday on a financial business show, the woman who represents my district on the Houston City Council, Pam Holm, appeared to congratulate the citizens of Houston who rose up and said no to this madness. "I do not understand how we can ever justify spending taxpayer dollars to pay somebody's credit card," She said. "I don't understand how it can be even considered to come up. I am truly embarrassed. I think it shows poor leadership." The "poor leadership" part of the remark truly perked up ears here, as it is very rare for a member of City Council to openly criticize the mayor. Those surprised by Holm's remarks have not been in her company. She is a member of my local Republican Women group and she is a strong advocate for her district. She is a tireless worker and she is not bashful to express an opinion. At a recent District meeting for state Republican women, I heard her announce her intention to run for city Comptroller. Our current Comptroller, Houston's first openly gay female politician, is running for mayor.
The mayor had to back off his plan to use the 'grants', to be taken from monies set aside for homeowner repairs after Hurricane Ike damage, and then feigned surprise that the motion had made it to City Council's agenda. That is completely crazy. The mayor sets the agenda and council members only vote or offer amendments. They have no agenda setting privileges. And, White was conveniently in Washington D.C. while the meeting was conducted. Cowardly at best.
Citizens were outraged and the e-mails began. One council member spoke of a voter that mailed him a bill and told him to pay it. The mayor finally admitted that he may have put too much pressure on his Housing Director to help put home buyers in the areas identified as "Houston Hope" areas. These are neighborhoods set aside to be revitalized by the city. Applicants can't earn more than 80 percent of the area's median income. The mayor blamed the city's Department of Housing and Community Development.
White claimed the monies would come from the $444,000 leftover from the city's $1.5 million appropriation for emergency home and roof repairs. It is quite a stretch of the imagination to believe there is money left over and no one in need.
The city has provided grants for down payments and for closing costs for 872 families since 2005. Incredible as that sounds, it is a fact. The Housing Director claims only one family has had a foreclosure from those receiving this benefit. Of course, he works for the mayor. The recently embarrassed mayor.
This scheme made national news. Fortunately for the people of Houston who pay their taxes and their bills, a light shined on the proposal. It is time for any arm of government - whether city, county, state or federal to stop with the picking of winners and losers.
It is hard to believe this scam from Mayor White was anything more than a pander to the lower income voter in hopes of support as he runs for higher office. Our mayoral races are billed as non-partisan but it is always clear which party is represented. White is a Democrat.
Do not think this disapproval comes solely from Republicans. It was rejected by all political stripes. It is a shame the mayor has this blot on his record. He has been widely popular throughout the city. I voted for his re-election based on his job performance after Hurricane Katrina. He worked with the county president - a Republican - and gave a place of refuge to the people of Louisiana. The city of Houston is known for its generosity to others. This was reinforced at that time here and abroad.
Houston, we almost had another problem. Mission accomplished. And, I am proud to be represented by Pam Holm on the Houston City Council.
Anyone ready for a tea party?
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
"Americans Can Do Anything", Says Jindal
Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal began his address to the nation by praising America's first African American president. This at the same time he was being smacked across the face by the left and the right in our country. It was surreal and it was to be expected.
Jindal's speech was a good one. It was not a great one but it didn't have to be. This was a no win situation for whomever was to follow President Obama. While Obama's delivery was flawed and he still doesn't have some rudimentary process under his belt - as when he began to speak before Speaker Pelosi introduced him - it was still delivered to the slobbering press and crowd. The agenda was large and no specific solutions were offered up yet you would think it was the best speech ever to read the glowing remarks afterward.
Jindal speaks quickly, especially for a man of the South. His delivery of the speech was evidently meant to slow him down and bring it to a common man's level. It seemed to reach too far back in maturity, though, and this leaves critics to feed on belittling him. Plus, Jindal is an unabashed patriotic first generation American who truly believes in his conservative message. More importantly, he is successfully governing a state known for corruption and bad behavior as a leader who walks the walk.
The left hates him.
Helen Thomas cracks a Slumdog Millionare joke about Gov. Jindal after calling his speech "pitiful" and it's accepted as comedy because it is an attack on a Republican of color. Imagine if it was a watermelon and fried chicken joke about Barack Obama. And, uttered by a known conservative. Wow. Just as MSNBC's Chris Matthews uttered "Oh, God" as Gov. Jindal came onto television screens, Helen Thomas is proven again to show her true colors. Both brag of their liberalism yet continue to shine an unflattering light on it.
The holier than thou wing of the Republican party is in full voice today criticizing the speech made last night by Gov. Bobby Jindal as a rebuttal to the one delivered by President Obama. I read one remark that many listeners would be surprised to see him and put his accent to is face. I read many remarks on his teacher tone as if to speak to kindergartners. I read that the message was dumbed down and wouldn't ring true with young people or the diversity crowd.
What is incredible to me, though sadly fully expected, is the fact that while we celebrate the nation's first African American president's first speech delivered to a joint meeting of Congress, in the same evening discrediting the rebuttal of the loyal opposition in the form of Gov. Jindal.
Who is Bobby Jindal? Jindal is the first Indian-American state governor. He is a Rhodes Scholar, a graduate of Oxford University. His birth certificate is not called into question. Born to poor Indian immigrants in the state of Louisiana, his "American" name is taken from a sitcom. His mother was four months pregnant with him when his parents arrived in this country, making him a "pre-existing condition" as he calls himself to insurance companies. Jindal began his career in politics at an early age - in his early 20's in the state of Louisiana and the state is richer for it. A classic Jindal line was spoken by him last night, "The strength of America is not found in our government, it is found in her people." "We look for hope in different places", when talking about the differences between Republicans and Democrats in basic political philosophy. And, the left hates him.
The American left hates Bobby Jindal. He is a rising star with plenty of time to get there. His age is 37. He is a first term governor and he will not be rushed into anything else. He says he will run for a second term and I believe him. The state sorely needs him and he knows how to lead. Plus, the people love him. He will be a strong candidate for higher office in 2016.
Jindal points to the fact that yes, Republicans in power lost their way as far as conservative fiscal policy and he speaks to the folly of that corruption. He is against universal health care if the government runs it. He advocates and implements charter schools and school choice, especially in New Orleans where the need is so obvious, especially after Hurricane Katrina. He demands the federal monies promised to Louisiana after devastating storms.
Gov. Jindal is known as a policy wonk. He is articulate. He is a fast talker. He leads by producing a positive message and inspiring the people of Louisiana. His life story is to be celebrated, not belittled for political gain. His life story is impossible in any other country. He is grateful and he is humble. The left hates him.
Jindal was raised with the constant statement from his father, "Americans can do anything". While the current president and his administration are busy stating that if Congress doesn't act immediately and expand government to unprecedented levels (while bashing the previous administration for doing so), then America may never recover. Doom and gloom. Last night Jindal said, "Don't let anyone tell you we cannot recover. That America's best days are behind her."
He plainly laid out the Republican alternatives to the big government solutions of the Democrats. He counsels that the Republican party must be more than the party of no and provide acceptable alternatives.
The left hates him. The right would do well to settle down and let him be just who he is.
Jindal's speech was a good one. It was not a great one but it didn't have to be. This was a no win situation for whomever was to follow President Obama. While Obama's delivery was flawed and he still doesn't have some rudimentary process under his belt - as when he began to speak before Speaker Pelosi introduced him - it was still delivered to the slobbering press and crowd. The agenda was large and no specific solutions were offered up yet you would think it was the best speech ever to read the glowing remarks afterward.
Jindal speaks quickly, especially for a man of the South. His delivery of the speech was evidently meant to slow him down and bring it to a common man's level. It seemed to reach too far back in maturity, though, and this leaves critics to feed on belittling him. Plus, Jindal is an unabashed patriotic first generation American who truly believes in his conservative message. More importantly, he is successfully governing a state known for corruption and bad behavior as a leader who walks the walk.
The left hates him.
Helen Thomas cracks a Slumdog Millionare joke about Gov. Jindal after calling his speech "pitiful" and it's accepted as comedy because it is an attack on a Republican of color. Imagine if it was a watermelon and fried chicken joke about Barack Obama. And, uttered by a known conservative. Wow. Just as MSNBC's Chris Matthews uttered "Oh, God" as Gov. Jindal came onto television screens, Helen Thomas is proven again to show her true colors. Both brag of their liberalism yet continue to shine an unflattering light on it.
The holier than thou wing of the Republican party is in full voice today criticizing the speech made last night by Gov. Bobby Jindal as a rebuttal to the one delivered by President Obama. I read one remark that many listeners would be surprised to see him and put his accent to is face. I read many remarks on his teacher tone as if to speak to kindergartners. I read that the message was dumbed down and wouldn't ring true with young people or the diversity crowd.
What is incredible to me, though sadly fully expected, is the fact that while we celebrate the nation's first African American president's first speech delivered to a joint meeting of Congress, in the same evening discrediting the rebuttal of the loyal opposition in the form of Gov. Jindal.
Who is Bobby Jindal? Jindal is the first Indian-American state governor. He is a Rhodes Scholar, a graduate of Oxford University. His birth certificate is not called into question. Born to poor Indian immigrants in the state of Louisiana, his "American" name is taken from a sitcom. His mother was four months pregnant with him when his parents arrived in this country, making him a "pre-existing condition" as he calls himself to insurance companies. Jindal began his career in politics at an early age - in his early 20's in the state of Louisiana and the state is richer for it. A classic Jindal line was spoken by him last night, "The strength of America is not found in our government, it is found in her people." "We look for hope in different places", when talking about the differences between Republicans and Democrats in basic political philosophy. And, the left hates him.
The American left hates Bobby Jindal. He is a rising star with plenty of time to get there. His age is 37. He is a first term governor and he will not be rushed into anything else. He says he will run for a second term and I believe him. The state sorely needs him and he knows how to lead. Plus, the people love him. He will be a strong candidate for higher office in 2016.
Jindal points to the fact that yes, Republicans in power lost their way as far as conservative fiscal policy and he speaks to the folly of that corruption. He is against universal health care if the government runs it. He advocates and implements charter schools and school choice, especially in New Orleans where the need is so obvious, especially after Hurricane Katrina. He demands the federal monies promised to Louisiana after devastating storms.
Gov. Jindal is known as a policy wonk. He is articulate. He is a fast talker. He leads by producing a positive message and inspiring the people of Louisiana. His life story is to be celebrated, not belittled for political gain. His life story is impossible in any other country. He is grateful and he is humble. The left hates him.
Jindal was raised with the constant statement from his father, "Americans can do anything". While the current president and his administration are busy stating that if Congress doesn't act immediately and expand government to unprecedented levels (while bashing the previous administration for doing so), then America may never recover. Doom and gloom. Last night Jindal said, "Don't let anyone tell you we cannot recover. That America's best days are behind her."
He plainly laid out the Republican alternatives to the big government solutions of the Democrats. He counsels that the Republican party must be more than the party of no and provide acceptable alternatives.
The left hates him. The right would do well to settle down and let him be just who he is.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Is President Obama Just An Empty Suit?
The speech that wasn't billed as a State of the Union Address was delivered by our first black president and we are all appreciative of that milestone. However, the speech did not live up to my expectations. While everyone delights in criticizing Governor Bobby Jindal's response to the speech, I'll put a few thoughts out there about the main event.
It was a pep rally. Granted our country could use a pep rally but suddenly the president makes the effort to stop with the constant doom and gloom and we are all suppose to be grateful for some optimism? It sounded phony. And, with the jack in the box performance of a constantly smiling Speaker of the House sitting behind him, the phoniness was magnified.
While it is good that the president continued to give lip service to working with all politicians in Washington, it rang hollow. We know how his biggest accomplishment to date was handled and it does not bode well for upcoming legislation. Also, by continuing to take pot shots at the previous administration, by saying not once but twice that he "inherited" the financial crisis, he sounds like he is still on the campaign trail and not the top of the leadership chain in the Oval Office. It is time to stop. With the passage of the massive spending bill, President Obama now owns the financial environment. He inherited nothing. He asked for the job, it wasn't just left to him.
It will be interesting to track how Wall Street reacts in the next few days. Up until today, Wall Street continued with the downward trend. We will see if today's rally continues. By saying his plan is not about helping banks but of helping people, how does he expect us to believe that if the banks don't have confidence to begin more relaxed credit lending? "People" won't be able to make large purchases unless banks (Wall Street) feel they have some support, too.
By putting Joe Biden at the helm for oversight of the spending bill's allotments, he turned the speech into a juvenile throwaway line - "Nobody messes with Joe". Really? Late night comedians, editorial pages, and talking heads on cable television may beg to differ. I think Joe is messed with quite a lot, and rightfully so. He is a walking gaffe machine.
And, what about Joe Biden's son, the hedge fund manager who is now dragged into the Sanford scandal?
President Obama said he doesn't want bigger government yet no cuts in spending were announced except in Defense. He went out of his way to tout closing Gitmo as the end of "torture" though he hasn't decided what to do with the remaining prisoners and didn't offer any solutions. Also, in recent days it has come to light that he will continue the policy of rendition of the previous administration - he just did it quietly with an Executive Order. Gitmo has been determined to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Will he send everyone to Bagram, Afghanistan where that facility has also been approved by the international community?
By continuing on with the crisis mode, he expects to ride his political capitol in these early days of his administration into massive governmental control of universal health care, energy policy and education reform. Perhaps he should re-read President Bush's first major accomplishment - No Child Left Behind and the federal expansion it brought. How many more billions of dollars must be wasted on our public school system? Now that a Democrat is in the White House it seems it is acceptable to utter the words "charter school" and teacher accountability.
Does this president understand it is with oil that solar panels are manufactured? How about all those "alternative batteries" that new car production will require? And, wind technology? Does he know that natural gas is drilled with oil? Someone should tell him. Otherwise he will continue to sound quite foolish.
He introduced his wife at the beginning of the speech at the same time as the Speaker and the Vice President. That was odd. And then he didn't bother to introduce the members representing the hero quota until the end of the speech. Then Michelle Obama hogged the spotlight meant for the little girl sitting next to her - the eight grade student from South Carolina who wrote to the President to fix her school. A young Democrat, I see. Michelle Obama does enjoy the spotlight.
The speech was long on campaign talk. The problem is that by saying "whatever proves necessary" as a solution to the crisis du jour is not a strategy uttered by a leader. We know the man is a pro at campaigning. He is very experienced at that. He so far has failed to lead.
Rolling back tax cuts is a tax increase. This increase also applies to those making over $250,000 that President Obama uses as the marker for "rich" in America. The problem is that small business people usually file as individuals and that puts them above the mark. The president doesn't understand this. This is a prime example of the policy differences between the two parties.
The spending bill touted as President Obama's big success - for which Speaker Pelosi is obviously taking full credit - will not succeed without large cuts in federal spending. There are many redundant programs in Washington. More are not needed. Simply adding some Czars to the equation accomplishes more red tape.
While the president was more optimistic towards the end of his speech, and he rallied as best as he could the audience, it remained a sophomoric attempt.
And, for those interested in the fashion scorecard: Michelle Obama has buff arms but should be told not to wear sleeveless dresses to evening events where professional attire is necessary. All the sheeple will continue to talk of her fashion style and how well she is put together but I continue to think of how Laura Bush was bashed as though she were a hick from the sticks as she moved into Washington with her quiet dignity intact. Jill Biden looked completely out of place in her pastel green suit, but at least it was a suit. And, Nancy Pelosi? That godawful thing she was wearing was not helped at all by her constant jumping - literally - out of her chair whether it was appropriate or not.
President Obama has spent more time out of Washington in the month that he has been there than any other new president. Can you imagine the howls if President Bush had done that? President Obama is failing on the leadership score. And, he doesn't need any more practice on the campaign trail. The campaign is over. He has to get out of mode.
Much more substance is needed to go along with the style. Otherwise, President Obama is doomed to empty suit status for the next four years.
It was a pep rally. Granted our country could use a pep rally but suddenly the president makes the effort to stop with the constant doom and gloom and we are all suppose to be grateful for some optimism? It sounded phony. And, with the jack in the box performance of a constantly smiling Speaker of the House sitting behind him, the phoniness was magnified.
While it is good that the president continued to give lip service to working with all politicians in Washington, it rang hollow. We know how his biggest accomplishment to date was handled and it does not bode well for upcoming legislation. Also, by continuing to take pot shots at the previous administration, by saying not once but twice that he "inherited" the financial crisis, he sounds like he is still on the campaign trail and not the top of the leadership chain in the Oval Office. It is time to stop. With the passage of the massive spending bill, President Obama now owns the financial environment. He inherited nothing. He asked for the job, it wasn't just left to him.
It will be interesting to track how Wall Street reacts in the next few days. Up until today, Wall Street continued with the downward trend. We will see if today's rally continues. By saying his plan is not about helping banks but of helping people, how does he expect us to believe that if the banks don't have confidence to begin more relaxed credit lending? "People" won't be able to make large purchases unless banks (Wall Street) feel they have some support, too.
By putting Joe Biden at the helm for oversight of the spending bill's allotments, he turned the speech into a juvenile throwaway line - "Nobody messes with Joe". Really? Late night comedians, editorial pages, and talking heads on cable television may beg to differ. I think Joe is messed with quite a lot, and rightfully so. He is a walking gaffe machine.
And, what about Joe Biden's son, the hedge fund manager who is now dragged into the Sanford scandal?
President Obama said he doesn't want bigger government yet no cuts in spending were announced except in Defense. He went out of his way to tout closing Gitmo as the end of "torture" though he hasn't decided what to do with the remaining prisoners and didn't offer any solutions. Also, in recent days it has come to light that he will continue the policy of rendition of the previous administration - he just did it quietly with an Executive Order. Gitmo has been determined to be in compliance with the Geneva Conventions. Will he send everyone to Bagram, Afghanistan where that facility has also been approved by the international community?
By continuing on with the crisis mode, he expects to ride his political capitol in these early days of his administration into massive governmental control of universal health care, energy policy and education reform. Perhaps he should re-read President Bush's first major accomplishment - No Child Left Behind and the federal expansion it brought. How many more billions of dollars must be wasted on our public school system? Now that a Democrat is in the White House it seems it is acceptable to utter the words "charter school" and teacher accountability.
Does this president understand it is with oil that solar panels are manufactured? How about all those "alternative batteries" that new car production will require? And, wind technology? Does he know that natural gas is drilled with oil? Someone should tell him. Otherwise he will continue to sound quite foolish.
He introduced his wife at the beginning of the speech at the same time as the Speaker and the Vice President. That was odd. And then he didn't bother to introduce the members representing the hero quota until the end of the speech. Then Michelle Obama hogged the spotlight meant for the little girl sitting next to her - the eight grade student from South Carolina who wrote to the President to fix her school. A young Democrat, I see. Michelle Obama does enjoy the spotlight.
The speech was long on campaign talk. The problem is that by saying "whatever proves necessary" as a solution to the crisis du jour is not a strategy uttered by a leader. We know the man is a pro at campaigning. He is very experienced at that. He so far has failed to lead.
Rolling back tax cuts is a tax increase. This increase also applies to those making over $250,000 that President Obama uses as the marker for "rich" in America. The problem is that small business people usually file as individuals and that puts them above the mark. The president doesn't understand this. This is a prime example of the policy differences between the two parties.
The spending bill touted as President Obama's big success - for which Speaker Pelosi is obviously taking full credit - will not succeed without large cuts in federal spending. There are many redundant programs in Washington. More are not needed. Simply adding some Czars to the equation accomplishes more red tape.
While the president was more optimistic towards the end of his speech, and he rallied as best as he could the audience, it remained a sophomoric attempt.
And, for those interested in the fashion scorecard: Michelle Obama has buff arms but should be told not to wear sleeveless dresses to evening events where professional attire is necessary. All the sheeple will continue to talk of her fashion style and how well she is put together but I continue to think of how Laura Bush was bashed as though she were a hick from the sticks as she moved into Washington with her quiet dignity intact. Jill Biden looked completely out of place in her pastel green suit, but at least it was a suit. And, Nancy Pelosi? That godawful thing she was wearing was not helped at all by her constant jumping - literally - out of her chair whether it was appropriate or not.
President Obama has spent more time out of Washington in the month that he has been there than any other new president. Can you imagine the howls if President Bush had done that? President Obama is failing on the leadership score. And, he doesn't need any more practice on the campaign trail. The campaign is over. He has to get out of mode.
Much more substance is needed to go along with the style. Otherwise, President Obama is doomed to empty suit status for the next four years.
Confessions of a Twitter Addict
Do you Twitter? I confess, I am hooked. Twitter is the first place I go to in the morning and the last place I check before I retire for the night.
To Twitter is to shrink thoughts, information and your life's movements into 140 characters or less. A 'tweet' may be something as mundane as what you are eating for a meal or as compelling as the recent jet crash into the Hudson River.
I tweet, therefore I am.
I most enjoy the constant updating from the news services on Twitter. As a political and current events junkie, this is no surprise. I "follow", or read tweets written by all the major news outlets. I follow everything from CNN and Fox News, Time magazine, reporters from the mainstream tv networks, and international outlets, too. BBC and others abroad bring the world to my lap with updates on my notebook computer.
Recently, Terry Moran, "Nightline" co-anchor, put Twitter to use on board Air Force One as he prepared to interview President Obama. He asked his followers to suggest interview questions and admitted many were good ones. Twitter can be a valuable tool for reporters by using the instant feedback that those connected provide. And, Twitter provides a more personal side of those in the public eye.
Sometimes it's fun to follow the tweets of celebrities, too. I follow comedian Paula Poundstone and tv star cook Paula Deen.
From an article in the Washington Post written by Howard Kurtz: "When that US Airways jet made an emergency landing in the Hudson River in January, Twitter users were providing updates before the New York Times published an online story. Janis Krums, a passenger on a nearby ferry, posted a Twitter photo of the plane in the water that was quickly picked up by major news organizations."
Twitter is used to transmit photos and also to link news stories or blog posts. I use it to let those interested in reading my blog know when a new post has been published. Twitter is a great networking tool.
Tweet on.
To Twitter is to shrink thoughts, information and your life's movements into 140 characters or less. A 'tweet' may be something as mundane as what you are eating for a meal or as compelling as the recent jet crash into the Hudson River.
I tweet, therefore I am.
I most enjoy the constant updating from the news services on Twitter. As a political and current events junkie, this is no surprise. I "follow", or read tweets written by all the major news outlets. I follow everything from CNN and Fox News, Time magazine, reporters from the mainstream tv networks, and international outlets, too. BBC and others abroad bring the world to my lap with updates on my notebook computer.
Recently, Terry Moran, "Nightline" co-anchor, put Twitter to use on board Air Force One as he prepared to interview President Obama. He asked his followers to suggest interview questions and admitted many were good ones. Twitter can be a valuable tool for reporters by using the instant feedback that those connected provide. And, Twitter provides a more personal side of those in the public eye.
Sometimes it's fun to follow the tweets of celebrities, too. I follow comedian Paula Poundstone and tv star cook Paula Deen.
From an article in the Washington Post written by Howard Kurtz: "When that US Airways jet made an emergency landing in the Hudson River in January, Twitter users were providing updates before the New York Times published an online story. Janis Krums, a passenger on a nearby ferry, posted a Twitter photo of the plane in the water that was quickly picked up by major news organizations."
Twitter is used to transmit photos and also to link news stories or blog posts. I use it to let those interested in reading my blog know when a new post has been published. Twitter is a great networking tool.
Tweet on.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Time For A New Message
Something is sorely missing from the message department of the White House. Have you figured out what that missing element is yet? The missing element is the message of hope. The missing message that we are going to get through the coming months of economic and political uncertainty and we will be ok.
Why did President Obama win in November? He won because he offered a message of hope and change. As vacuous as that was, voters fell for it and voted him in. The economic downturn was his magic carpet and he rode it all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Once there, he turned up the volume on the doom and gloom rhetoric in order to put the largest spending bill in U.S. history into action. All the omnimous, stern lectures of how we have to manage catastrophic events in our economy and in relationship to crashing world economies were for political gain for the incoming administration.
So, how's that working out?
True, President Obama received his wish of speedy passage of the unbelievably poorly written spending bill - rushed through before the members of Congress even had time to read the 1100 pages of pork-filled and power grabbing gobbley-gook. There was no input from Republicans in the House and none voted for the final passage, bringing along 11 Democrats with them in disapproval. Only three Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of passage and the President had to send a jet to fetch Sen. Sherrod Brown from his mother's wake in Ohio to garner enough support.
So much for the flowery statements of bipartisan support and transparency in legislation.
The president is talking down the economy long after his method is necessary. The DOW continues to fall. The glory days of the number 14,000 from 2007 are long gone, just a distant memory. No one is showing much faith in the competence of his boy wonder, Secretary Geithner, and the voters are up in arms over the slow drip of information as it pertains to the contents of the spending bill.
The mood is sour throughout the country. No one expects the administration to work miracles, especially with only a month into office, but a change of tone would work wonders. Though it is common with the revisionist writing of history, a lesson could be taken from the previous administration under President Bush.
As Mark McKinnon writes on The Daily Beast, "George W. Bush was president through some of the darkest days of our history and yet his optimism never waned. He is optimistic by nature, but he also understood the importance of always communicating a sense that things will get better. And it's in part why John Kerry lost in 2004. He painted a terrible picture of the future. And as Bush said, "You can't say things are going to be awful, follow me and expect to turn around and see a crowd."
In recent years it became popular to mock President Bush for telling Americans they could participate in the economic recovery of our nation after the attacks of 9/11/01 by simply doing something as basic as going shopping. The message was that we must continue to live our lives. We must remain hopeful of future events. We must continue to purchase items for our homes and families, show patronage of local merchants, support your community as you support your country. It's simple but it must be said. It's back to basics time.
Times are bleak, to be sure. But, we'll survive. It is common for the politicians to mimic the President's expression that times haven't been this tough since the days of the Great Depression. It's not factual, certainly in economic terms, but it sounds scary and keeps an audience's attention. It is fear mongering for fear mongering's sake. And, it is wrong. It is a cheap political trick and it is backfiring. Americans have hunkered down and are too nervous to make purchases, though the majority of Americans remain employed. Americans are too nervous to purchase new homes, though most Americans remain in their homes. Lenders have not released all the monies they've received and contribute to the frustrations. It's all adding up.
The early days of Ronald Reagan's administration were dark days indeed. We all remember the mess Jimmy Carter left. Historically speaking, those days were worse than what is faced now. Unemployment was higher, interest rates were skyrocketing, inflation had taken hold, and public confidence was at all time lows. We are in better shape today than then with the potential for a speedier recovery. President Reagan never stooped to doom and gloom speeches. He is remembered for his sunny disposition throughout the tough times and his unyielding optimism in the future of our country.
Hope is good. The President has a duty to inspire Americans with the feeling of hope and confidence in the days ahead. It is time for President Obama to re-group and bring his best efforts of renewed faith in the American future to her people.
President Obama will give a speech to a joint session of Congress in the coming week. He has the perfect opportunity to begin to send a new message. We're waiting.
Why did President Obama win in November? He won because he offered a message of hope and change. As vacuous as that was, voters fell for it and voted him in. The economic downturn was his magic carpet and he rode it all the way to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Once there, he turned up the volume on the doom and gloom rhetoric in order to put the largest spending bill in U.S. history into action. All the omnimous, stern lectures of how we have to manage catastrophic events in our economy and in relationship to crashing world economies were for political gain for the incoming administration.
So, how's that working out?
True, President Obama received his wish of speedy passage of the unbelievably poorly written spending bill - rushed through before the members of Congress even had time to read the 1100 pages of pork-filled and power grabbing gobbley-gook. There was no input from Republicans in the House and none voted for the final passage, bringing along 11 Democrats with them in disapproval. Only three Republicans in the Senate voted in favor of passage and the President had to send a jet to fetch Sen. Sherrod Brown from his mother's wake in Ohio to garner enough support.
So much for the flowery statements of bipartisan support and transparency in legislation.
The president is talking down the economy long after his method is necessary. The DOW continues to fall. The glory days of the number 14,000 from 2007 are long gone, just a distant memory. No one is showing much faith in the competence of his boy wonder, Secretary Geithner, and the voters are up in arms over the slow drip of information as it pertains to the contents of the spending bill.
The mood is sour throughout the country. No one expects the administration to work miracles, especially with only a month into office, but a change of tone would work wonders. Though it is common with the revisionist writing of history, a lesson could be taken from the previous administration under President Bush.
As Mark McKinnon writes on The Daily Beast, "George W. Bush was president through some of the darkest days of our history and yet his optimism never waned. He is optimistic by nature, but he also understood the importance of always communicating a sense that things will get better. And it's in part why John Kerry lost in 2004. He painted a terrible picture of the future. And as Bush said, "You can't say things are going to be awful, follow me and expect to turn around and see a crowd."
In recent years it became popular to mock President Bush for telling Americans they could participate in the economic recovery of our nation after the attacks of 9/11/01 by simply doing something as basic as going shopping. The message was that we must continue to live our lives. We must remain hopeful of future events. We must continue to purchase items for our homes and families, show patronage of local merchants, support your community as you support your country. It's simple but it must be said. It's back to basics time.
Times are bleak, to be sure. But, we'll survive. It is common for the politicians to mimic the President's expression that times haven't been this tough since the days of the Great Depression. It's not factual, certainly in economic terms, but it sounds scary and keeps an audience's attention. It is fear mongering for fear mongering's sake. And, it is wrong. It is a cheap political trick and it is backfiring. Americans have hunkered down and are too nervous to make purchases, though the majority of Americans remain employed. Americans are too nervous to purchase new homes, though most Americans remain in their homes. Lenders have not released all the monies they've received and contribute to the frustrations. It's all adding up.
The early days of Ronald Reagan's administration were dark days indeed. We all remember the mess Jimmy Carter left. Historically speaking, those days were worse than what is faced now. Unemployment was higher, interest rates were skyrocketing, inflation had taken hold, and public confidence was at all time lows. We are in better shape today than then with the potential for a speedier recovery. President Reagan never stooped to doom and gloom speeches. He is remembered for his sunny disposition throughout the tough times and his unyielding optimism in the future of our country.
Hope is good. The President has a duty to inspire Americans with the feeling of hope and confidence in the days ahead. It is time for President Obama to re-group and bring his best efforts of renewed faith in the American future to her people.
President Obama will give a speech to a joint session of Congress in the coming week. He has the perfect opportunity to begin to send a new message. We're waiting.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Pope's Message to Pelosi
Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi and seven other Democrats rushed through the spending bill of the Obama administration in order to make their plane to Italy. Wednesday, the Pope reinforced the laws of Karma.
Pope Benedict XVI told Pelosi that "Catholic politicians and legislators cannot back abortion rights", according to WELT ONLINE. Pelosi is often on the receiving end of critism from U.S. bishops for her personal interreptation of Catholic doctrine.
"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural and moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death..."a Vatican statement said."
"It said such teaching "enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men of goodwill in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development," it said."
Reads like a direct shot to me. Pelosi failed to mention the issue of abortion as she issued her personal statement after her meeting with the pope. She focused on her praise of the Church's leadership "in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming." Global warming. OK.
In August, Pelosi was criticized for her failure to define the beginning of life. She stated it was still an "issue of controversy" within the Church, yet Catholic doctrine defines life as beginning at the moment of conception. Life ends at the moment of natural death.
In a post-election zeal to imprint its own stamp of leadership, the Obama administration disclosed that President Obama reversed a Bush administration ban on funding for groups overseas providing abortion services. Nancy Pelosi was a vocal supporter of this action. The Vatican pointedly criticized this move.
Also, during the campaign season, then candidate Obama stated that as a supporter of abortion rights, he would not want a daughter of his to be "punished" with a baby if she found herself pregnant as a teenager.
Pope Benedict XVI told Pelosi that "Catholic politicians and legislators cannot back abortion rights", according to WELT ONLINE. Pelosi is often on the receiving end of critism from U.S. bishops for her personal interreptation of Catholic doctrine.
"His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural and moral law and the Church's consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death..."a Vatican statement said."
"It said such teaching "enjoins all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men of goodwill in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development," it said."
Reads like a direct shot to me. Pelosi failed to mention the issue of abortion as she issued her personal statement after her meeting with the pope. She focused on her praise of the Church's leadership "in fighting poverty, hunger and global warming." Global warming. OK.
In August, Pelosi was criticized for her failure to define the beginning of life. She stated it was still an "issue of controversy" within the Church, yet Catholic doctrine defines life as beginning at the moment of conception. Life ends at the moment of natural death.
In a post-election zeal to imprint its own stamp of leadership, the Obama administration disclosed that President Obama reversed a Bush administration ban on funding for groups overseas providing abortion services. Nancy Pelosi was a vocal supporter of this action. The Vatican pointedly criticized this move.
Also, during the campaign season, then candidate Obama stated that as a supporter of abortion rights, he would not want a daughter of his to be "punished" with a baby if she found herself pregnant as a teenager.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Obama Signs Spending Bill
Have you noticed a pattern to the travels of President Obama? By hosting campaign style events in Virginia, Indiana, Florida and now Colorado, the president is tipping his hand. He and his team plan to visit swing states from the 2008 election as often as possible to store up support for the re-election bid that will come for 2012. His administration intends to simply remain in campaign mode throughout his terms as president.
The alleged candidate of change, now the President of the U.S. has fallen far short in his brief amount of time in office. A glaring spotlight has shined on President Obama's lack of leadership. In order to meet a fabricated deadline for his spending bill, masked as economic stimulus, President Obama outsourced the legislation to Speaker Pelosi and her cohorts in the House. She allowed the bill to become a wish list of every liberal spending program on the party's agenda for the past 30 years. We now know that the rush for legislation to sign was another fabrication. The same president who demanded immediate action - to the point of his Democrat leadership ramming it through before anyone even read the more than 1,000 pages of the legislation - felt comfortable to leave Washington for a three day vacation break in Chicago with his family.
Remember when President Bush went to Crawford to spend time at the ranch and all the grief he took for his 'time off' from Washington? Where are those critics now?
Senator Judd Gregg has now recovered from whatever it was that caused his extreme lack of judgement about joining the team at the White House as Secretary of Commerce. First it was coming forward that this White House intends to manipulate the national census for the benefits of the Democrats in Congress and the re-election of this president. For the first time, the census will be under the oversight of Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. The same Chief of Staff who is also a politician from Chicago and known for his extreme partisanship in Washington. He learned the ropes as a member of the staff for the Clinton administration.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says there is "historical precedent" to take the census out of the Commerce Department and into the White House for supervision. That is not true but he receives a pass from the blinded by adoration national press.
You may remember the cries that the Bush administration was grabbing too much control in the Executive branch. Yet, who knew that the change promised by this new president was for his team to just move in and site "historical precedent" if questioned?
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released the following statement:
"It is disappointing that President Obama would make the census about politics rather than an accurate count of the American people by taking control of the process away from career professionals at the Department of Commerce and putting the most partisan chief of staff since H.R. Haldeman in the Nixon Administration in charge."
Speaker of the House Pelosi and seven other Democrats rushed through the spending bill so that their vacation plans to Italy would not be postponed. President Obama sent a jet for Senator Sherrod Brown for him to fly back from Ohio and his mother's wake to vote in favor of the spending bill. Senator Gregg, who didn't resign his seat before confirmation as Commerce Secretary, voted against the spending bill. A fiscal conservative, he was not able to get on board with the bill.
President Obama went to visit the Caterpillar plant in East Peoria, Illinois last week. He told the workers nervous about the security of their manufacturing jobs there that he was told by their CEO Jim Owens that some of the 22,000 layed off workers would be recalled for work with the signing of the bill. This was the same day, back in Washington, that Press Secretary Gibbs declared the Columbia Free Trade agreement all but dead. And who is the now primary buyer of the big machines manufactured by Caterpillar? That's right - the country of Columbia.
Caterpillar executives have been quite vocal in their support of the trade agreement with Columbia. 63% of Caterpillar's sales are overseas. Pelosi's Democrats in the House, insisted that the "Buy American" provision remain in the spending bill. The European Union has begun to express much displeasure with this provision and the protectionist implications.
Senator Gregg is a free-trader. Perhaps he hoped to change the Obama administration's insistence on rewarding American union bosses who took him into the White House. Perhaps he hoped to be a voice for all the small business owners that employ 75% of the American workforce, yet will receive almost no benefit from the spending bill.
Now, Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens says, "The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again. It's going to take some time before that stimulus bill means rehiring."
Senator Gregg must have come to the realization that he would be a seat warmer in this new administration. He could be pointed to as the "bipartisan" outreach of this administration. He was window dressing. Fortunately for his own self esteem, he realized this before the confirmation process moved forward.
The Republican alternative to the spending bill just signed today in Denver, in the swing state of Colorado with the former Senator from Colorado, now the Interior Secretary present, was one of tax cuts, promotion of free markets and stimulating a favorable environment for business investment. It is a time proven formula. A Republican as Commerce Secretary would know that.
By insisting on taking the census into the White House, the Democrats will push for using the guesstimate method of counting people in this country. It is unconstitutional. The method of counting people is laid out in the Constitution as a visual head count. By guessing how many people are in any given district, the Democrats intend to grow the districts dominated by minorities, typically those voting for Democrats. This is an intentional malfeasance of power.
While President Obama would like for us to think of him as Abe Lincoln, perhaps he would be wise to remember how the "team of rivals" concept worked out for him.
This administration heavy with Chicago pols is making the Clinton administration look like amateur hour for smoke and mirrors.
The alleged candidate of change, now the President of the U.S. has fallen far short in his brief amount of time in office. A glaring spotlight has shined on President Obama's lack of leadership. In order to meet a fabricated deadline for his spending bill, masked as economic stimulus, President Obama outsourced the legislation to Speaker Pelosi and her cohorts in the House. She allowed the bill to become a wish list of every liberal spending program on the party's agenda for the past 30 years. We now know that the rush for legislation to sign was another fabrication. The same president who demanded immediate action - to the point of his Democrat leadership ramming it through before anyone even read the more than 1,000 pages of the legislation - felt comfortable to leave Washington for a three day vacation break in Chicago with his family.
Remember when President Bush went to Crawford to spend time at the ranch and all the grief he took for his 'time off' from Washington? Where are those critics now?
Senator Judd Gregg has now recovered from whatever it was that caused his extreme lack of judgement about joining the team at the White House as Secretary of Commerce. First it was coming forward that this White House intends to manipulate the national census for the benefits of the Democrats in Congress and the re-election of this president. For the first time, the census will be under the oversight of Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. The same Chief of Staff who is also a politician from Chicago and known for his extreme partisanship in Washington. He learned the ropes as a member of the staff for the Clinton administration.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says there is "historical precedent" to take the census out of the Commerce Department and into the White House for supervision. That is not true but he receives a pass from the blinded by adoration national press.
You may remember the cries that the Bush administration was grabbing too much control in the Executive branch. Yet, who knew that the change promised by this new president was for his team to just move in and site "historical precedent" if questioned?
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele released the following statement:
"It is disappointing that President Obama would make the census about politics rather than an accurate count of the American people by taking control of the process away from career professionals at the Department of Commerce and putting the most partisan chief of staff since H.R. Haldeman in the Nixon Administration in charge."
Speaker of the House Pelosi and seven other Democrats rushed through the spending bill so that their vacation plans to Italy would not be postponed. President Obama sent a jet for Senator Sherrod Brown for him to fly back from Ohio and his mother's wake to vote in favor of the spending bill. Senator Gregg, who didn't resign his seat before confirmation as Commerce Secretary, voted against the spending bill. A fiscal conservative, he was not able to get on board with the bill.
President Obama went to visit the Caterpillar plant in East Peoria, Illinois last week. He told the workers nervous about the security of their manufacturing jobs there that he was told by their CEO Jim Owens that some of the 22,000 layed off workers would be recalled for work with the signing of the bill. This was the same day, back in Washington, that Press Secretary Gibbs declared the Columbia Free Trade agreement all but dead. And who is the now primary buyer of the big machines manufactured by Caterpillar? That's right - the country of Columbia.
Caterpillar executives have been quite vocal in their support of the trade agreement with Columbia. 63% of Caterpillar's sales are overseas. Pelosi's Democrats in the House, insisted that the "Buy American" provision remain in the spending bill. The European Union has begun to express much displeasure with this provision and the protectionist implications.
Senator Gregg is a free-trader. Perhaps he hoped to change the Obama administration's insistence on rewarding American union bosses who took him into the White House. Perhaps he hoped to be a voice for all the small business owners that employ 75% of the American workforce, yet will receive almost no benefit from the spending bill.
Now, Caterpillar CEO Jim Owens says, "The truth is we're going to have more layoffs before we start hiring again. It's going to take some time before that stimulus bill means rehiring."
Senator Gregg must have come to the realization that he would be a seat warmer in this new administration. He could be pointed to as the "bipartisan" outreach of this administration. He was window dressing. Fortunately for his own self esteem, he realized this before the confirmation process moved forward.
The Republican alternative to the spending bill just signed today in Denver, in the swing state of Colorado with the former Senator from Colorado, now the Interior Secretary present, was one of tax cuts, promotion of free markets and stimulating a favorable environment for business investment. It is a time proven formula. A Republican as Commerce Secretary would know that.
By insisting on taking the census into the White House, the Democrats will push for using the guesstimate method of counting people in this country. It is unconstitutional. The method of counting people is laid out in the Constitution as a visual head count. By guessing how many people are in any given district, the Democrats intend to grow the districts dominated by minorities, typically those voting for Democrats. This is an intentional malfeasance of power.
While President Obama would like for us to think of him as Abe Lincoln, perhaps he would be wise to remember how the "team of rivals" concept worked out for him.
This administration heavy with Chicago pols is making the Clinton administration look like amateur hour for smoke and mirrors.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Socialism Marches On
"Democrats have been in charge of Washington for just a few weeks but their record so far is disappointing to voters who hoped for change." That is a quote issued from Republican National Committee's chairman, Michael Steele. Republicans and many Democrats are greatly disappointed in the display of raw power grabbing that belied the passage of the spending bill that is to stimulate the economy.
Senator Cornyn, (R-TX) said "As a staunch advocate of open government and transparency, I take serious issue with the fact that Members of Congress and the American public had less than 24 hours to look at the conference report before the final vote." "A better approach to the stimulus bill that actually creates more opportunity for middle-class families and small businesses and restores America's economic strength was available. It remains available, and I will continue to build support for an alternative and comprehensive plan."
No member of Congress read the bill before voting on it. Staffers found many objectionable pieces in the legislation that were never discussed or allowed amendments before the final vote. One major stumbling block is the measures added in for a back door approach to socialized medical care in our country. Tom Daschle, before he took himself out of nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary and Health Care Reform Czar, had the whole disturbing game plan written out in a book he published in 2008. The book is called, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" contains his philosophical bon mots including "Doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners." That according to an article by Betsy McCaughey posted on Bloomberg.com.
Continuing, "The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system." Interesting train of thought for an American living in a free republic and not a socialist European country.
If you are a senior citizen, according to Tom Daschle, you will be expected to just accept the fact that advancing age brings on medical conditions and don't expect treatment for them. Younger members of society are more deserving, as they are assumed to live longer after treatment.
According to Ms. McCaughey, "Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council". That is written on page 464. "The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or reflects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis."
Also from Ms. McCaughey, "Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."
McCaughy notes, too, "The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product." If this industry is to be limited, and severely, then will the electronics and auto industries be next? Will Rep. Maxine Waters make good on her announced intentions to nationalize the oil industry? Will all the banks be nationalized with government imposed demands in exchange?
Our republic faces the march of socialism. History shows this to be a very dangerous time for us indeed. The President, by the way, who insisted this monster spending bill be rammed down our throats before anyone actually knew what was in it, is enjoying a vacation weekend with the family back in Chicago. He'll not sign it until more people are tuned into the news on Tuesday and it will be a campaign style photo op from Denver. Seems the President is still in campaign mode.
The President who claimed as a candidate to be post partisan has been anything but that. Eventually he will be called upon to get into the process and lead the country. His presence is needed in Washington.
Senator Cornyn, (R-TX) said "As a staunch advocate of open government and transparency, I take serious issue with the fact that Members of Congress and the American public had less than 24 hours to look at the conference report before the final vote." "A better approach to the stimulus bill that actually creates more opportunity for middle-class families and small businesses and restores America's economic strength was available. It remains available, and I will continue to build support for an alternative and comprehensive plan."
No member of Congress read the bill before voting on it. Staffers found many objectionable pieces in the legislation that were never discussed or allowed amendments before the final vote. One major stumbling block is the measures added in for a back door approach to socialized medical care in our country. Tom Daschle, before he took himself out of nomination for Health and Human Services Secretary and Health Care Reform Czar, had the whole disturbing game plan written out in a book he published in 2008. The book is called, "Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis" contains his philosophical bon mots including "Doctors have to give up autonomy and "learn to operate less like solo practitioners." That according to an article by Betsy McCaughey posted on Bloomberg.com.
Continuing, "The goal, Daschle's book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept "hopeless diagnoses" and "forgo experimental treatments," and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system." Interesting train of thought for an American living in a free republic and not a socialist European country.
If you are a senior citizen, according to Tom Daschle, you will be expected to just accept the fact that advancing age brings on medical conditions and don't expect treatment for them. Younger members of society are more deserving, as they are assumed to live longer after treatment.
According to Ms. McCaughey, "Medicare now pays for treatments deemed safe and effective. The stimulus bill would change that and apply a cost-effectiveness standard set by the Federal Council". That is written on page 464. "The Federal Council is modeled after a U.K. board discussed in Daschle's book. This board approves or reflects treatments using a formula that divides the cost of the treatment by the number of years the patient is likely to benefit. Treatments for younger patients are more often approved than treatments for diseases that affect the elderly, such as osteoporosis."
Also from Ms. McCaughey, "Hiding health legislation in a stimulus bill is intentional. Daschle supported the Clinton administration's health-care overhaul in 1994, and attributed its failure to debate and delay. A year ago, Daschle wrote that the next president should act quickly before critics mount an opposition. "If that means attaching a health-care plan to the federal budget, so be it," he said. "The issue is too important to be stalled by Senate protocol."
McCaughy notes, too, "The health-care industry is the largest employer in the U.S. It produces almost 17 percent of the nation's gross domestic product." If this industry is to be limited, and severely, then will the electronics and auto industries be next? Will Rep. Maxine Waters make good on her announced intentions to nationalize the oil industry? Will all the banks be nationalized with government imposed demands in exchange?
Our republic faces the march of socialism. History shows this to be a very dangerous time for us indeed. The President, by the way, who insisted this monster spending bill be rammed down our throats before anyone actually knew what was in it, is enjoying a vacation weekend with the family back in Chicago. He'll not sign it until more people are tuned into the news on Tuesday and it will be a campaign style photo op from Denver. Seems the President is still in campaign mode.
The President who claimed as a candidate to be post partisan has been anything but that. Eventually he will be called upon to get into the process and lead the country. His presence is needed in Washington.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Reels of Romance
How about some escapism this Valentine's Day? A good, classic romance movie fits the bill. Here are some suggestions:
Classic Favorites
Casablanca (1942) — An intense love triangle between a jaded nightclub owner in French-occupied Morocco during World War II (Humphrey Bogart), his ex-lover (Ingrid Bergman) and her husband, a famous Czech rebel and nationalist (Paul Heinreid), is at the center of this movie, which is perhaps the greatest love story ever committed to film.
Gone With the Wind (1939) — The beautiful and scheming Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) is a Southern belle whose world changes forever with the outbreak of the Civil War. Obsessed by her first love, who is married to another, Scarlett struggles to survive the war and its aftermath, as well as her passionate, tortured relationship with the man who may be her soul mate, Rhett Butler (Clark Gable).
Roman Holiday (1953) — This romantic comedy stars Audrey Hepburn as the bored Princess Anne, who escapes her entourage during a diplomatic visit to Rome and sets out to have fun, aided by a handsome American newspaper reporter (Gregory Peck) who angles for an exclusive interview but ends up--surprise!--falling in love with her.
From Here to Eternity (1953) — Set on an army base in Hawaii in the days before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, this film is the story of the love affair between a sergeant (Burt Lancaster) and the wife (Deborah Kerr) of his commanding officer. Watch for the famous beach scene, when Lancaster and Kerr kiss in the sand as the waves crash over them.
An Affair to Remember (1957) — Terry (Deborah Kerr) and Nickie (Cary Grant) meet and fall in love on a ship traveling across the Atlantic Ocean. Both engaged to other people, they say goodbye, but agree to meet atop the Empire State Building in six months if their feelings remain the same.
I wish everyone a very Happy Valentine's Day. I received my valentine this morning - a call via Skype from my husband in Nigeria. A great way to begin the day.
Classic Favorites
Casablanca (1942) — An intense love triangle between a jaded nightclub owner in French-occupied Morocco during World War II (Humphrey Bogart), his ex-lover (Ingrid Bergman) and her husband, a famous Czech rebel and nationalist (Paul Heinreid), is at the center of this movie, which is perhaps the greatest love story ever committed to film.
Gone With the Wind (1939) — The beautiful and scheming Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh) is a Southern belle whose world changes forever with the outbreak of the Civil War. Obsessed by her first love, who is married to another, Scarlett struggles to survive the war and its aftermath, as well as her passionate, tortured relationship with the man who may be her soul mate, Rhett Butler (Clark Gable).
Roman Holiday (1953) — This romantic comedy stars Audrey Hepburn as the bored Princess Anne, who escapes her entourage during a diplomatic visit to Rome and sets out to have fun, aided by a handsome American newspaper reporter (Gregory Peck) who angles for an exclusive interview but ends up--surprise!--falling in love with her.
From Here to Eternity (1953) — Set on an army base in Hawaii in the days before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, this film is the story of the love affair between a sergeant (Burt Lancaster) and the wife (Deborah Kerr) of his commanding officer. Watch for the famous beach scene, when Lancaster and Kerr kiss in the sand as the waves crash over them.
An Affair to Remember (1957) — Terry (Deborah Kerr) and Nickie (Cary Grant) meet and fall in love on a ship traveling across the Atlantic Ocean. Both engaged to other people, they say goodbye, but agree to meet atop the Empire State Building in six months if their feelings remain the same.
I wish everyone a very Happy Valentine's Day. I received my valentine this morning - a call via Skype from my husband in Nigeria. A great way to begin the day.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Republicans Find Their Mojo
As our country tries to stop the bleeding economically and pull ourselves out of this recession, we are left with two key figures for leadership. Both rookies in the world of national politics and neither are proving to be ready for prime time.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner are gifts to the Republican party. Thanks to continued stumbling and stammering in dealing with the recession, Republicans have found their mojo, long ago lost during the Bush years.
Secretary Geithner was tragically inept in delivering economic strategy in his first solo news conference. As the administration's voice for recovery, he looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Blessed or cursed with youthful looks, he appeared to be robotic looking left and right from teleprompter screen to teleprompter screen. When did cabinet members take to reading from teleprompters? It was embarrassing to watch.
We were told, as a skeptic American public, that this tax cheat was the only person in the entire country that could figure out the way forward to economic recovery. Never mind that he was a part of the first bank/Wall Street bailout during the last administration on the NY Federal Reserve. He's a Wall Street guy. He presented no plan at all. After all the hype, there was nothing but hot air.
Holding a press conference to announce that a plan is being worked out, or that a plan is to come, is not exactly what the American public expected.
President Obama is blaming the tax cuts of former President Bush as an integral part of our economic woes. According to IBDeditorials.com, "It's ideological politics at its worst. (It's worth noting that while Obama was trashing supply-siders on Monday night, Scott Rasmussen's latest poll showed 62% of U.S. voters wanting the stimulus plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.)" "Obama's attack on supply-side economics would rule out the successful Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts that spurred growth in the 1960's and the Reagan tax cuts that ignited growth in the 1980's. Even Bill Clinton cut the capital-gains tax. And George W. Bush's tax cuts helped generate a six-year economic expansion before the oil shock and credit crunch took hold."
The stock market plunged 400 points after the Geithner performance fiasco.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the recession should bottom out and begin recovery at the end of 2009. That is with all things as they are now. Today the numbers released show that unemployment numbers have lessened a bit and that retail sales are up. Constant talk of an impending revisit to the great depression is not helpful. Talking down the economy to increase fear and to push through a dream spending bill for the liberals in Washington, D.C. is borderline criminal. It is dishonest and it is wrong.
In The Telegraph, Toby Harnden writes that President Obama's novice standing is showing. "In the early days of his presidency, Mr. Obama has seemed passive and uncertain. Instead of drawing up his own economic stimulus bill, he sub-contracted the job to Democrats on Capitol Hill. They opted to spend money on projects for contraception and beautifying the National Mall - their doorstep - and gave Republicans plenty of ammunition against the package." "He attempted to charm Republican centrists with his own personality and the trappings of the White House by inviting them over for cocktails and a Super Bowl party. It didn't work. Of 219 Republicans on Capitol Hill, only three voted for the bill. Introducing a $500,000 pay cap for some Wall Street executives was empty - and possibly counter-productive - populism."
"Governing, as Mr. Obama is finding out, is not like an election campaign. Mr. Bush's failures will give him some leeway and his transformative appeal remains potent. But making decisions and operating the levers of power is something completely new to him. And it shows."
The blundering approach to this spending bill have given Republicans an infusion of enthusiasm. Not simply the party of 'no', as the Democrats were during the Bush years, alternatives have been offered to the spending bill in Congress. Republicans have been roundly shut out of all of the behind closed doors hashing out of the bill. Republican amendments have been voted down along party lines. "We won" is the battle cry for the Democrats. Even the President has taken to making that victorious claim. He will soon realize it is not a winning tactic.
The events of the last two weeks point to a glaring conclusion before the American public - the Oval Office is not the place for on the job training.
President Obama and Treasury Secretary Geithner are gifts to the Republican party. Thanks to continued stumbling and stammering in dealing with the recession, Republicans have found their mojo, long ago lost during the Bush years.
Secretary Geithner was tragically inept in delivering economic strategy in his first solo news conference. As the administration's voice for recovery, he looked like a deer caught in the headlights. Blessed or cursed with youthful looks, he appeared to be robotic looking left and right from teleprompter screen to teleprompter screen. When did cabinet members take to reading from teleprompters? It was embarrassing to watch.
We were told, as a skeptic American public, that this tax cheat was the only person in the entire country that could figure out the way forward to economic recovery. Never mind that he was a part of the first bank/Wall Street bailout during the last administration on the NY Federal Reserve. He's a Wall Street guy. He presented no plan at all. After all the hype, there was nothing but hot air.
Holding a press conference to announce that a plan is being worked out, or that a plan is to come, is not exactly what the American public expected.
President Obama is blaming the tax cuts of former President Bush as an integral part of our economic woes. According to IBDeditorials.com, "It's ideological politics at its worst. (It's worth noting that while Obama was trashing supply-siders on Monday night, Scott Rasmussen's latest poll showed 62% of U.S. voters wanting the stimulus plan to include more tax cuts and less government spending.)" "Obama's attack on supply-side economics would rule out the successful Kennedy-Johnson tax cuts that spurred growth in the 1960's and the Reagan tax cuts that ignited growth in the 1980's. Even Bill Clinton cut the capital-gains tax. And George W. Bush's tax cuts helped generate a six-year economic expansion before the oil shock and credit crunch took hold."
The stock market plunged 400 points after the Geithner performance fiasco.
The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reports that the recession should bottom out and begin recovery at the end of 2009. That is with all things as they are now. Today the numbers released show that unemployment numbers have lessened a bit and that retail sales are up. Constant talk of an impending revisit to the great depression is not helpful. Talking down the economy to increase fear and to push through a dream spending bill for the liberals in Washington, D.C. is borderline criminal. It is dishonest and it is wrong.
In The Telegraph, Toby Harnden writes that President Obama's novice standing is showing. "In the early days of his presidency, Mr. Obama has seemed passive and uncertain. Instead of drawing up his own economic stimulus bill, he sub-contracted the job to Democrats on Capitol Hill. They opted to spend money on projects for contraception and beautifying the National Mall - their doorstep - and gave Republicans plenty of ammunition against the package." "He attempted to charm Republican centrists with his own personality and the trappings of the White House by inviting them over for cocktails and a Super Bowl party. It didn't work. Of 219 Republicans on Capitol Hill, only three voted for the bill. Introducing a $500,000 pay cap for some Wall Street executives was empty - and possibly counter-productive - populism."
"Governing, as Mr. Obama is finding out, is not like an election campaign. Mr. Bush's failures will give him some leeway and his transformative appeal remains potent. But making decisions and operating the levers of power is something completely new to him. And it shows."
The blundering approach to this spending bill have given Republicans an infusion of enthusiasm. Not simply the party of 'no', as the Democrats were during the Bush years, alternatives have been offered to the spending bill in Congress. Republicans have been roundly shut out of all of the behind closed doors hashing out of the bill. Republican amendments have been voted down along party lines. "We won" is the battle cry for the Democrats. Even the President has taken to making that victorious claim. He will soon realize it is not a winning tactic.
The events of the last two weeks point to a glaring conclusion before the American public - the Oval Office is not the place for on the job training.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Senator Cornyn Raising Funds Differently
"It's always struck me as a bit odd that we try to rely so much financially on the same members we're working to get re-elected, whether it's this cycle or the next," Cornyn told Politico.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). He is changing up the way the committee raises money. He has declared fundraising as the most important action of the committee and will be trying new avenues.
Previously, the NRSC expected senators to meet fund raising quotas. Cornyn will implement a more personal approach. "Instead of requiring that every senator fork over hundreds of thousands from their personal campaign accounts to the national Senate campaign coffers, Cornyn now wants each senator to attend three fund raisers - yes, they have to show up - and then the NRSC will chase after the attendees for that cash." That from the Politico.
The NRSC will organize the events. Last election cycle the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $70 million more than NRSC.
Change is good.
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) is chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC). He is changing up the way the committee raises money. He has declared fundraising as the most important action of the committee and will be trying new avenues.
Previously, the NRSC expected senators to meet fund raising quotas. Cornyn will implement a more personal approach. "Instead of requiring that every senator fork over hundreds of thousands from their personal campaign accounts to the national Senate campaign coffers, Cornyn now wants each senator to attend three fund raisers - yes, they have to show up - and then the NRSC will chase after the attendees for that cash." That from the Politico.
The NRSC will organize the events. Last election cycle the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised $70 million more than NRSC.
Change is good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)