4
Sep
No sooner than I post my rant on Obama surrounding himself with communists, Paul Krugman once again proves my point. For those who don’t know, Paul Krugman is an avowed liberal. Damn proud of it too. No sooner than I read the news about Van Jones being a communist, Paul had this to offer:
Something is going very wrong in the heads of a substantial number of Americans.
People who oppose this version of health care reform are un-American, disruptors, and astro-turfers. Now, people who don’t like Obama’s socialist agenda are just plain crazy. Clue here Paul, although a lot of liberals called Bush a fascist, no one called him a socialist/Commie. The reason they didn’t is because he was the farthest thing from being a socialist/Commie. However, Van Jones is an avowed communist. That’s not people like me claiming he’s a commie, that’s Van Jones making the claim. There’s nothing anyone can do about that. Obama has cozied up to Chavez. That’s not anyone claiming he’s hung out with socialists, that’s Obama making the claim for all the world to see. We haven’t made the claim that Obama has deep roots with the Democratic Socialists of America, Obama has told us he has by appointing a substantial number of their members to Cabinet positions. So, this is what it looks like:
- He has hung out with socialists in his public appearances.
- He has frequented socialist leaders.
- He has appointed socialists from Congress to Cabinet positions, and socialists from the private sector are among his closest advisors ( read czars ).
- By practice, he thinks the government is the answer and the private sector is too greedy. ( Clue here Paul, he’s citing Karl Marx. )
So tell me Paul, what are we supposed to think?
Now, I learned a long time ago true craziness is when you assume everyone else is crazy. In Paul’s case, I think it’s just a case of liberalism.
4
Sep
Barack Obama has found a loophole he loves. By appointing “special advisors”, otherwise known as “czars”, he completely bypasses Nancy Pelosi and the rest of Congress. He doesn’t have to worry about those annoying confirmation hearings by doing that. I’m sure he feels that by eliminating public hearings, he’s doing us all a favor. I’m sure he’s right. For instance, if he’d followed traditional protocol, we would have had to listen to a lot more of a “special” candidate Van Jones. I had never heard of Van Jones before. So, I looked up some pros and cons of this guy. First, the pro:
Van Jones is a globally recognized, award-winning pioneer in human rights and the clean energy economy. He is a 1993 graduate of the Yale Law School and an attorney.
Van wrote the definitive book on “green jobs”: The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems
. In 2008 — thanks to a low-cost, viral marketing campaign — his book became an instant New York Times bestseller. It is today being translated into six languages.
As a tireless advocate for disadvantaged people and the environment, Van helped to pass America’s first “green job training” legislation: the Green Jobs Act, which George W. Bush signed into law as a part of the 2007 Energy Bill. He is the co-founder of a number of successful non-profit organizations, including the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights and Green For All.
Van is the recipient of many awards and honors, including: the Reebok International Human Rights Award; the World Economic Forum’s Young Global Leader designation; the prestigious, international Ashoka Fellowship; and many more. Van was included in the Ebony Magazine “Power 150″ list of most influential African Americans for 2009. In 2008, Essence magazine named him one of the 25 most inspiring/influential African Americans. TIME Magazine named him an environmental hero in 2008. In 2009, TIME named him one of the 100 most influential people in the world.
In March 2009, Van went to work as the special advisor for green jobs at the White House Council for Environmental Quality.
Pretty lofty accolades. That was written by Van Jones himself. He really likes himself. That’s good I suppose. You can fix two problems at one time by buying his book via my link. Win-win for Van and myself. Although it was an instant New York Times bestseller, it’s currently at 13,475 in Amazon’s book listing. Better get it quick then while it’s still printed in English.
He then founded the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in his spare time. On their main page, you can read about Van Jones being on Time’s list of influential people. In addition, they advocate:
- Close the Dangerous and Dysfuctional Division of Juvenile Justice Youth Prisons and shift responsibility and funding to local programs proven to work — Californians will save $1 Billion of 5 years.
- Convert all current death sentences to life without possibility of parole and temporarily suspend new death sentences for a savings of $1 Billion over 5 years. ( Be sure to support the ACLU!)
- Shift California to a community-health based response to minor drug offenses.
- Limit 3 strikes penalties to those convicted of violent crimes.
OK, so it seems Van’s primary focus is green energy and human rights. So, it only seems natural Obama would appoint him as his “green energy czar”. However, as usual for Obama’s administration, this guy comes with some baggage:
- Jones joined the “9/11 truther” movement by signing a statement in 2004 calling for then-New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer and others to launch an investigation into evidence that suggests “people within the current administration may indeed have deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.” Fox points out that fellow members include Code Pink founder Jodie Evans and former Representative Cynthia McKinney. Anyone who knows me knows what I think of Cynthia McKinney. In addition, another member of that site is James von Brunn. He’s the guy who shot up the US Holocaust Memorial Museum.
- Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement (STORM), the revolutionary group formed by self-described “communist” and “rowdy black nationalist” Van Jones, held a vigil in Oakland, California, “mourning the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world” on the night after Sept. 11, 2001. STORM has purged most of it’s records, however, a copy can be found here. They blamed the US for 9/11.
- Van Jones, the Obama administration’s “green jobs” adviser, apologized Wednesday for calling Republicans “assholes,” saying the comments were made before he joined the administration and “were clearly inappropriate.” Jones had told a group of listeners earlier in the year that the reason Republicans are stonewalling the president is because they’re “assholes,” remarks that were recorded in a video and posted to YouTube. “I apologize for the offensive words I chose to use during that speech,” Jones said in a written statement to Politico. “They do not reflect the views of this administration, which has made every effort to work in a bipartisan fashion, and they do not reflect the experience I have had since I joined the administration.”
- Another fairly Youtube video is the one where Van Jones claims whites are intentionally poisoning blacks by sending all of the bad “green economy” poison into poor neighborhoods. I’m not sure exactly who did the research to support his assumption.
- He has very extensive ties to Communist organizations within the US. I was going to list those ties, but it’s rather lengthy. And no, I’m not citing Glenn Beck. Glenn Beck simply read the news.
- He has openly advocated, ok, here comes the word all liberals hate to hear, socialism. He even claims that liberals are basically closet socialists. No way!
- In a 2004 Yes article claimed “Bush will work to intensify the borrow-and-spend tax policies, drill-and-burn energy policies, and lie-and-die military misadventure in Iraq. A draft is a real possibility, The GOP will unleash a fearsome assault on civil liberties, especially targeting Arabs. And Team Bush will carry out its own 21st century Christian jihad, persecuting Muslims, feminists, and “sexual deviants” wherever it can. Bush will try to stack the courts, including the Supreme Court, with right-wingers, and He will try to reward big business by privatizing social security and ramming through “tort reform” to shield corporations from lawsuits“.
It goes on and on. He basically rose to fame in Oakland by harassing their cops with his STORM organization through a program called Copwatch. STORM was openly communist.
This is the guy Obama has handed a $30 billion budget to. And, to me personally, the most ghastly fact about Van Jones, something so disgusting and vile it nauseates me to think that in order to support my point that this guy’s not the best idea for this un-Constitutional Executive power grab. Van Jones is openly…….
Sheez, I’m not sure I can say it here. I’ll look slightly to the side of the screen and type. Of course I’ll look to the right, there is nothing to the left of this guy. That’ll make it ok.
He openly admires Nancy Pelosi.
What the hell was Obama thinking with this guy? Van Jones is the best reason “csars”, ie special advisors to the President, should be banned.
25
Aug
A fellow had this to say, among other things:
….we had already seen two tax cuts sold on massively, easily documented false pretenses; a war launched with constant innuendo about a Saddam-Osama link that was clearly false, and with claims about WMDs that were clearly shaky from the beginning and had proved to be entirely without foundation. We’d also seen vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy. Oh, and Abu Ghraib was already public knowledge.
And to hammer home his point:
Bloggers like Atrios or Kos? Again, if you read their archives what’s striking is how sane they come off compared with the “serious” voices of the time.
OK, so now six months in to a liberal’s panacea, we’ve seen at least two tax increases, with more promised via allowing those tax cuts he complains about to expire. The current President, who echoed the exact sentiments of Paul Krugman, Atrios, and Kos, is now doing exactly what Bush did in both Iraq and Afghanistan that Krugman, Atrios, and Kos have complained about. If it was so wrong and they were not a threat, why is he staying there “indefinitely”? This same president is also getting hammered on the issues of WMD’s in, you guessed it, the Axis of Evil Bush complained about that Atrios and Kos assured us were just political scare tactics. We’ve also seen, in six months, no doubt, vast, well-documented dishonesty and politicization on environmental policy as Obama has had numerous appointments withdrawn due to legal issues, and has already reneged on several environmental promises he made while campaigning. It’s gotten the point where even Greenpeace is panning Obama. He has also expanded Bush’s wiretapping policy, set up a White House tip line, moved investigations into the domestic enforcement agency, requested expanded internet surveillance, cozied up to Cuba while distancing Israel, totally undermined our international surveillance capabilities ala Jamie Gorelick, proposed a socialized health care model apparently no one wants, completely sold out to unions, and, his first budget will have more deficit than all eight of Bush’s combined. I mean, look at this again:
I’m sure I’ve overlooked other issues.
And, what makes it even more remarkable, he’s done all that in six months. Krugman had to list all eight Bush years to get a much smaller list.
Given all that, it makes complete sense to distrust anything the Obama administration says. That’s not reflexive, it’s rational. I resent Krugman’s insinuation because in order to believe that a completely biased opinion is rational is to assume all other opinions are irrational. To pick only certain issues to justify a rational conclusion is, well, not rational. That’s biased. Let’s look closer, shall we? First, the definition of bias:
a particular tendency or inclination, esp. one that prevents unprejudiced consideration of a question; prejudice.
Now, reflexive:
reflex; responsive
Now, rational:
endowed with the faculty of reason:
Now, if a person only allows one set of evidence to be presented to make the argument they’re rational, is that using reason, or, is that showing a particular tendency or inclination?
Now, the difference between me claiming I’m rational and using the same argument to show Krugman is reflexive is because I told people Obama would do these things last year. I’m not reflexive. I am rational in that I am simply re-iterating a reasoned assumption I made in the past and commenting on issues as they happen. Krugman just bitches and whines about everything Bush, even well after Bush is gone. That’s just not rational. He’s got bigger problems to deal with than prosecuting people long gone. But, he can’t do that. He’s too reflexive. Probably because the present sucks so bad.
13
Jul
I just listened to Russ Feingold’s ten mintues of fame during the Sonia Sotomayor hearings. He’s nuts.
“That is why I suggest to everyone watching today that they be a little wary of a phrase they may hear at these hearings – ‘judicial activism.’ That term really has lost all usefulness, particularly since so many rulings of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court can fairly be described as ‘activist’ in their disregard for precedent and their willingness to ignore or override the intent of Congress. At this point, perhaps we should all accept that the best definition of a ‘judicial activist’ is a judge who decides a case in a way you don’t like. Each of the decisions I mentioned earlier was undoubtedly criticized by someone at the time it was issued, and maybe even today, as being ‘judicial activism.’ Yet some of them are among the most revered Supreme Court decisions in modern times.
Perhaps he should accept that the best definition is the one most widely used:
: the practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent —compare JUDICIAL RESTRAINT
That’s not my definition, that’s dictionary.com’s. Or perhaps:
Judicial activism is a critical term used to describe judicial rulings that are viewed as imposing a personal biased interpretation by a given court of what a law means as opposed to what a neutral, unbiased observer would naturally interpret a law to be. The term is most often used to describe left-wing judges.
That’s the definition according to the more fluid wikipedia. The only problem I have with that one is rather than calling it “left-wing”, the word “liberal” should have been used. Defining laws as one sees fit doesn’t get any more liberal than that. You don’t get any more liberal than Russ Feingold. First he tosses out any written definition, then he redefines the word as he wants it to be, then uses that personally re-defined word to attack those that he sees fit. In this case, it’s anyone who prefers the law be enforced as it’s written. If there’s a problem with that law, have the Congress change the law. It’s called sepration of powers. Here’s the written definition for Russ:
the principle or system of vesting in separate branches the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of a government.
Notice that legislative and judicial are two SEPARATE branches. Judicial is not supposed to make laws, legislative is not supposed to enforce laws. Therefore, in very simple text, that is accepted, are the very fundamental roles that keeps our government in balance. A judge that does not get that very fundamental balance doesn’t deserve to be in a position to conflict with the other branches. And quite frankly, a senator who doesn’t understand their role in the government doesn’t deserve to be there either. But, people will keep voting for them anyway.
Then Feingold takes it a little deeper:
“One attack that I find particularly shocking is the suggestion that she will be biased against some litigants because of her racial and ethnic heritage. This charge is not based on anything in her judicial record because there is absolutely nothing in the hundreds of opinions she has written to support it. That long record – which is obviously the most relevant evidence we have to evaluate her – demonstrates a cautious and careful approach to judging. Instead, a few lines from a 2001 speech, taken out of context, have prompted some to charge that she is a racist. I believe that no one who reads the whole Berkeley speech could honestly come to that conclusion. The speech is actually a remarkably thoughtful attempt to grapple with a difficult issue not often discussed by judges – how do a judge’s personal background and experiences affect her judging.
He’ll be even more shocked to find out that not one person has said anything against her racial and ethnic heritage. What we’ve taken exception to is her own words:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
I would like to know how Russ Feingold can tell anyone that singling out a class of people solely on their race is anything BUT racism? How singling a class of people based on their gender is anything BUT gender discrimination? I could care less what her ethinicity is, she’s made a point of mine. I could care less what she’s got between her legs, she’s made a point of mine. Come on Russ, do me a favor, explain how I should feel any different about appointing someone who spoken racism and gender discrimination against both my race and my gender.
And, the last lie that I’m going to nail Russ on is this is not about “a few lines from a 2001 speech, taken out of context”. According to many readily available sources:
Sotomayor has used the “wise Latina” phrase repeatedly in speeches dating back to 1994.
That’s from Time magazine. It’s not taken out of context. She doesn’t claim that it is. Feingold just says it is to make his point that people are making stuff up to attack an imaginary issue.
Then he sums it up woth:
how do a judge’s personal background and experiences affect her judging
The answer is, it shouldn’t. If I were to assume it did, and that was OK, then I’d have to assume that as a white male living in Appalachia, she’d have absolutely no clue whatsoever how to deal with my problems. That’s troublesome to me. And, it should be troublesome to a white male living in mostly rural Wisconsin. Do mineral rights mean anything to her? Eminent domain? I mean, there are a lot of issues that aren’t normally dealt with by a “wise Latina” from the Bronx. If she were strictly interpreting the law as it’s written, she wouldn’t have to worry about whether the issue was regarding a white Latina or a wise male living in Mississippi. She’d just apply the law. Everyone would be treated exactly the same. I wouldn’t go to that extreme, but after singling out “white males” in her speech, she overturned a discrimination case involving white males. So, the evidence is there to be questioned.
I have supported my claims through links to sources. I’d like to see Feingold do the same. The fact is Russ Feingold is making stuff up. Given how readily available that information is, that means he’s just flat out lying.
I’m waiting for Keith Olbermann to scoop this story. And, I’m waiting for Nancy Pelosi to condemn Feingold’s actions as more of the same from the Culture of Corruption that is the Democrat Party.
And what’s even more amazing about this farce is that Al Franken should be speaking right about now about the merits of a Supreme Court Justice nominee.
20
May
There is a site that is asking people “Which frontrunner is the worst liberal judicial activist?”. Now, naturally, this is a loaded question. If you’re not a screaming liberal, they all look equally bad. So, imagine my non-surprise when I get the results so far:
Now, this presents two situations to me. First of all, there is no clear “worst”. If it’s one of these three, you’ve got an activist judge that feels the Constitution is open to interpretation as they see fit. The second problem is if these votes represent mostly Republicans, as I imagine it does, then there is no ghost chance at all any organized resistance to his nominee will occur. People either have semi-mixed feelings about what they don’t like, or, they don’t have a clue what it is they are objecting to and are just clicking for the sake of showing disapproval of anything Obama does. If it’s the former, that’s good. If it’s the latter, that’s bad. Either way, there’s nothing Republicans can do to stop his nominee even if they are the worst judge on the planet. So, may as well figure some way to get a postive spin on it.
My suggestion? Find liberal issues the nominee has voted against and throw those out there in a very public light. It most likely won’t stop the process, but it would sew more discontent with people who perceive Obama as becoming more and more afraid to do what it is his liberal base expected him to do.
Personally, I don’t care who his nominee is. Obama’s replacing a liberal with a liberal. It’s not going to change the court one iota.
13
Jan
Here we go. The members of the US Senate class of 2008 haven’t even been fully seated and we are already sepculating on 2010. CNN has already decided the Republicans are in trouble in 2010 simply because, get this, they had trouble in 2006 and 2008. Logical huh? Wikipedia references something called the Cook Political Report as the official word on what is going to happen in 2010. Their breakdown has it looking something like this:
| DEMOCRATS | 17 HELD SEATS | ||||||
| SOLID D (11) | LIKELY D (5) | LEAN D (1) | TOSS UP (0) | LEAN R (0) | LIKELY R (0) | SOLID R (0) |
| Lincoln (AR) | Boxer (CA) | Bennet (CO) | ||||
| Dodd (CT) | Reid (NV) | |||||
| Kaufman (DE) | Dorgan (ND) | |||||
| Inouye* (HI) | Murray (WA) | |||||
| IL (Obama) | Feingold (WI) | |||||
| Bayh (IN) | ||||||
| Mikulski (MD) | ||||||
| Schumer (NY-A) | ||||||
| NY-B (Clinton) | ||||||
| Wyden (OR) | ||||||
| Leahy (VT) | ||||||
| REPUBLICANS | 20 HELD SEATS | ||||||
| SOLID D (0) | LIKELY D (0) | LEAN D (0) | TOSS UP (4) | LEAN R (2) | LIKELY R (2) | SOLID R (12) |
| FL (Martinez) | KS (Brownback) | OH (Voinovich) | Shelby (AL) | |||
| Bunning* (KY) | Specter* (PA) | Coburn (OK) | Murkowski (AK) | |||
| Vitter (LA) | McCain (AZ) | |||||
| MO (Bond) | Isakson (GA) | |||||
| Crapo (ID) | ||||||
| Grassley* (IA) | ||||||
| Gregg (NH) | ||||||
| Burr (NC) | ||||||
| DeMint (SC) | ||||||
| Thune (SD) | ||||||
| TX (Bailey Hutchison) | ||||||
| Bennett (UT) | ||||||
Basically, it’s a pretty simple chart. If you’re a Democrat, you’ll likely win. If you’re a Republican, it could be a toss-up. For instance, it lists Kentucky as a toss-up because the sitting senator might be retiring. That’s based on actions Bunning made in 2007. In 2008, he’s running. That’s how accurate these things are at this point.
Most people are painting the Republicans in trouble primarily because of what happened two months ago. However, history tells them, and me, that things are probably not going to be as easy in 2010 as they were in 2008. There are several things people need to take into consideration before lumping the Democrats unbeatable forever.
- Most pundits, especially the slightly more liberal ones like ABC, CNN and MSNBC, predicted Democrat super-majorities based on the 2008 elections. That didn’t happen. In Kentucky particularly, the Republican Senator won and Obama lost. So, these coat-tails that some media have been assuming is there never has been in some places. The Republicans did surprisingly well in Kentucky given that Kentucky is a 2.5 to 1 Democrat state and the head of the Democrat ticket was being lauded by all media as the greatest candidate of all-time. Something went wrong somewhere.
- History has been brutal on the majority party during the first election following a presidential election. The wildly popular Bill Clinton had his legs taken out from under him in 1994. The exception noted by CNN and most people was 2002. However, there was an event in very late 2001 that affected the elections of 2002. Barring some catastrophe in 2009, I expect history to repeat itself for several reasons. Partially, in large part, because the “wildly popular” Bill Clinton was never truly “wildly popular”. The media just loved him. The majority of people in the United States did not. 43% of the vote just isn’t a terribly long coat tail.
- The dynamics of the 2008 election have been horribly abused by the media. Although the Democrats nominated someone farther to the left than is typically successful, the Republicans nominated a moderate that failed to capture the base of his own party. This left the Republicans putting more resources into the presidential race as the presidential candidate was unable to compete financially with the Democrat. As such, their efforts in the Senate races were not well coordinated or financed. In 2010 the Republicans will not have this distraction and typically outspend the Democrats. Whether people like it or not, money talks very loudly in local races. Expect a much more coordinated effort from the Republicans in 2010. Because:
- Obama is pro-civil rights to the point of being extremely anti-business. A lot of his views border on Marxism. Sure, I know that has been tossed around a lot, but it is true. What little legislation we’ve seen coming out of the House in 2009 so far has been pro-civil rights, anti-business. Even with the economy in the tank, the liberal arm of the Democrat party is in full socialist mode, attacking businesses. That will bite the Democrats very quickly.
- Nancy Pelosi is in charge of the House. She got to where she is as a one trick pony. However, that one trick is now biting her. Running on purely ethics issues and against “the worst president ever”, she now has neither issue to fall back on. In addition, she is as liberal or moreso than Obama, and purely committed to partisan politics. Her stance that no Democrat ever had anything to do with the economic mess we’re in now flying squarely in the face of reality should mean something more if the economic situation continues into 2009. A very simple campaign platform for the Republicans would be that this mess didn’t occur until the Democrats took over the House. If it’s not resolved by election time, look for a lot more people to believe that argument.
- Harry Reid is in charge of the Senate. His ineptness and flip-flopping on issues has not only confounded people outside of Nevada like myself, it’s apparently tiring people in Nevada to the point where some are questioning whether he can even hold his seat. Some pundits are even calling Reid the most vulnerable Democrat up for re-election. If Reid is vulnerable in 2010 as the Senate Speaker under the most popular elected president in the history of the world, something’s amiss. If his leadership is so out of touch that it jeapordizes his long held seat, that could present problems for the DNC in 2010.
- Balance of power. This country has been unkind to the party in power. Bill Clinton had it all of two years. George HW Bush had it for a few years and lost it as well in 2006. It would most likely have been earlier, but the dynamics of the 2002 elections were skewed, and the Democrats shot themselves in the foot repeatedly in 2004. By 2006, things returned to normal and the people voted for balance. I’m not saying we’ll have that balance by 2010, but I think people will be working towards it.
- Failed expectations. People set the bar way too high for Obama. He can’t meet all those expectations. It’s just impossible. He can do well. But, well isn’t good enough. Because of that, expect some backlash over time as people realize he is not the messiah. He’s not at this point even controlling his own party. As much as he preached bipartisanhip, Nancy Pelosi has put the screws to that already. I expect he’ll survive. But, expect some backlash with the constituency.
- Iraq. If the troops aren’t out of Iraq by 2009, look for serious backlash.
- Economy. If the economy’s not back on track in 2009, look for serious backlash.
- National security. Obama painted a picture by choosing Leon Panetta as CIA director. If there is a major terrorist issue in 2009 or early 2010, expect that to affect things.
- Scandals. A lot of the gains the Democrats made in 2006 and 2008 were based on self-inflicted wounds within the Republican party. However, those players are out of the spotlight and now we’re looking at Democrats such as Blago, William Jefferson, Sheila Dixon, and others.
I could go on and on. Each race will have its own dynamics. However, the bottom line to me is this could be 1994 all over again. The only question to me at this point is if the RNC is capable of capitalizing. Now, I’m moderate. However, I’m not moderate on any real issue. No one is. The Republicans hung their hat on conservative issues with Reagan, and that’s what got them in charge. Over time, people confused conservative values with a reliance on religious values. That eroded some of the base. Abuses of power, inept leadership, and in-fighting took them down. However, the culmination was running a moderate for president. He appealed to me to some degree, but wasn’t anything I could get real excited about. It’s hard to get excited about any moderate. That’s just the nature of the beast being open to any issue. When Clinton won, he had to be more moderate, but won on liberal views. When Bush II won, he won on conservative values but had to move to more moderate views as well. Now, Obama has won running on extremely liberal credentials but moved to the middle during his campaign, and I expect will lurch even moreso to the middle once the realities of his decisions hits him ( which I think they arlready have ). I think this is a lot of the reason for the second year curse that seems to hit most modern presidents. As the figurehead abandons the ideology that got him and his minions elected, the public revolts in the democratic way. Obama can not possibly remain as liberal as he ran and was perceived and be an effective president. He’s already abandoned several campaign issues ( we’ll be in Iraq a lot longer, his tax incentives will be moderated ). As such, I expect the revolt to begin in 2010.
That’s all I have to say about that. Today.
I read an article by Marie Cocco of the Washington Post in RealClearPolitics. it just confounds me. Per Marie:
She goes on and on about how important the middle class is.
This is the sort of socialist stuff I just flat out don’t see how people can truly believe makes a society function.
I’ll start from the bottom line and work up just a little. Fact is, no business has ever been created to assure there is a middle class. Never. Never will be either. A business is created so that a person can acheive one or two objectives, sometimes both:
- Freedom to operate their business in the manner they see fit.
- Economic initiative. They want to make more money.
That’s it. Name one company in the history of the United States that was created with the intent of creating a middle class.
Working up from the bottom line, the problems with GM is not that they have successfully created a middle class the last fifty years, contrary to what Marie Cocco thinks, it’s that they allowed the focus on non-business issues to overwhelm the ability of the business itself to remain viable. It’s fine and dandy to create a middle class, and some upper class, when business is good. However, when times go bad for a company, that middle class is expected to suffer as well. What Marie Cocco is expecting is for GM to go bankrupt and STILL support the middle class? That folks is beyond clueless, it’s asinine. Whether she wants to believe it or not, GM is in the shape it’s in because it’s paying it’s people too much. Maybe not in cash, but between these golden retirement plans, health insurance the average people don’t get, and getting paid many times what the average worker makes, GM is just spending too much. Toss in some lousy management at the top, and GM is doomed.
Now, once GM does go completely bankrupt, how will that contribute to the middle class, Marie?
It amazes me how stupid and unconcerned people who write for national media can be. Marie is just typical of how left and unconcerned with reality print media has become. Which I’m sure is major contributing factor in another of today’s headlines:
It’s easy to trash media. They screw things up all the time. Just pick a story, any story, and you’ll find something wrong with it. For instance, today, Foxnews, which claims to represent the conservative peeps of the US, ran this headline:
Flip-Flopper?
McCain/Palin backing ‘View’ co-host Hasselbeck stuns viewers | PHOTOS
The story headline was a little different:
The object of all this was this comment:
Hasselbeck said the massive voter turnout and the excitement of the presidential contest inspired her. “I will get in a long line of supporters … for this president,” she said.
Now, to me, this is horribly wrong in a lot of aspects.
First of all, what we all need is to get behind whoever the president is. For a while anyway. Give the guy a chance to prove he’s up to the job. I’m doing it. I’m not quite as conservative as Hasselbeck. It’s not even hard to do. I want to feel good about my country. Some people run around carrying a load of resentment like some badge of honor, that’s not me. I’ll at least wait till I see some results of our new president’s policies and comment on those policies if I see fit. That’s not flip-flopping. I supported McCain because I felt it was best for the country. I’ll now support our president because it’s best for the country. That’s consistency.
Second, it illustrates the complete lack of understanding almost all media I have seen have of what it is to be conservative. Name one loud mouthed offensive conservative actor or comedian. That’s just not how it’s done. Being conservative is more a lifestyle than it is an effort to promote agendas. We’re not fighting against everything. The problem with liberals in media is they tend to pigeon hole themselves into very narrow corners because they feel compelled to “fight” everything. Hasselbeck never said she hated Obama. Most of her co-hosts have. They are pinned in a corner. For them to have the balls Hasselbeck had would definitely merit flip-flopping. She can do it, they can’t. Because they can’t, they’re shocked she would. That’s the beauty of not opening your mouth to prove what everyone pretty much assumed.
Thirdly, and lastly since it’s lunchtime, media is always looking for some “shock”. Fact is, only those paid to get shocked were shocked because it puts them individually in a very bad light. Outside of those sitting on the stage of The View, there is nothing here. It shows a person willing to do what she sees best for her country. That is all. There is nothing shocking about that. So, to create headlines over-dramatizing something to me is not honest reporting.
I’m not shocked at all with Elizabeth Hasselbeck. I agree with her. Any true conservative does as well. We wish him well. We are impressed by the campaign he ran. We hope he does a decent job. But, we also hope he doesn’t dick around with our rights and grow the government too much. If he does, the support for Obama will stop with those issues.
There’s nothing shocking about that when you look at it for what it is, country first, personal politics second. For those that have it backward, I’m sure Hasselbeck is a shock to the system.
21
Sep
Given it’s opportunity to see a woman advance to the second most powerful position in the world, NOW punted. She’s not “woman” enough according to them. In reality, she’s not liberal enough for them. They didn’t even bother to fact-check their opinions, they had already made up their mind. Now, most people I’m sure had always felt that NOW was much more interested in politics than women’s rights, this just nailed it.
Barack Obama’s having a rough week.
First, he did the very odd thing of stating very publicly he liked President Bush’s Faith Based Initiative so much he wanted to expand it. That drew the ire of the Reverend Jesse Jackson:
Now, I don’t think the reverend was terribly upset that Obama wanted to expand the opportunities for religious social programs to do good, I think it was because he did the unthinkable and supported a wildly conservative President’s idea. Luckily for Obama, people have focused more on his nuts and not on the fact that it was spoken by a wildly liberal, race baiting African American. This is the core of Obama’s support ( wildly liberal, not necessarily African American ).
Then to further antagonize the wildliy liberal Russ Feingold offered this piece of advice for Obama:
To which Obama’s immediate reaction to Feingold was:
| Akaka (D-HI), Nay Alexander (R-TN), Yea Allard (R-CO), Yea Barrasso (R-WY), Yea Baucus (D-MT), Yea Bayh (D-IN), Yea Bennett (R-UT), Yea Biden (D-DE), Nay Bingaman (D-NM), Nay Bond (R-MO), Yea Boxer (D-CA), Nay Brown (D-OH), Nay Brownback (R-KS), Yea Bunning (R-KY), Yea Burr (R-NC), Yea Byrd (D-WV), Nay Cantwell (D-WA), Nay Cardin (D-MD), Nay Carper (D-DE), Yea Casey (D-PA), Yea Chambliss (R-GA), Yea Clinton (D-NY), Nay Coburn (R-OK), Yea Cochran (R-MS), Yea Coleman (R-MN), Yea Collins (R-ME), Yea Conrad (D-ND), Yea Corker (R-TN), Yea Cornyn (R-TX), Yea Craig (R-ID), Yea Crapo (R-ID), Yea DeMint (R-SC), Yea Dodd (D-CT), Nay Dole (R-NC), Yea |
Domenici (R-NM), Yea Dorgan (D-ND), Nay Durbin (D-IL), Nay Ensign (R-NV), Yea Enzi (R-WY), Yea Feingold (D-WI), Nay Feinstein (D-CA), Yea Graham (R-SC), Yea Grassley (R-IA), Yea Gregg (R-NH), Yea Hagel (R-NE), Yea Harkin (D-IA), Nay Hatch (R-UT), Yea Hutchison (R-TX), Yea Inhofe (R-OK), Yea Inouye (D-HI), Yea Isakson (R-GA), Yea Johnson (D-SD), Yea Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting Kerry (D-MA), Nay Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay Kohl (D-WI), Yea Kyl (R-AZ), Yea Landrieu (D-LA), Yea Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay Leahy (D-VT), Nay Levin (D-MI), Nay Lieberman (ID-CT), Yea Lincoln (D-AR), Yea Lugar (R-IN), Yea Martinez (R-FL), Yea McCain (R-AZ), Not Voting McCaskill (D-MO), Yea McConnell (R-KY), Yea |
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay Mikulski (D-MD), Yea Murkowski (R-AK), Yea Murray (D-WA), Nay Nelson (D-FL), Yea Nelson (D-NE), Yea Obama (D-IL), Yea Pryor (D-AR), Yea Reed (D-RI), Nay Reid (D-NV), Nay Roberts (R-KS), Yea Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea Salazar (D-CO), Yea Sanders (I-VT), Nay Schumer (D-NY), Nay Sessions (R-AL), Not Voting Shelby (R-AL), Yea Smith (R-OR), Yea Snowe (R-ME), Yea Specter (R-PA), Yea Stabenow (D-MI), Nay Stevens (R-AK), Yea Sununu (R-NH), Yea Tester (D-MT), Nay Thune (R-SD), Yea Vitter (R-LA), Yea Voinovich (R-OH), Yea Warner (R-VA), Yea Webb (D-VA), Yea Whitehouse (D-RI), Yea Wicker (R-MS), Yea Wyden (D-OR), Nay |
Now, even the ACLU condemned this piece of legislation. So, we’ve got Rev. Jesse Jackson, ACLU, And Russ Feingold condemning Obama in about a week. That’s pretty tough for any candidate. Now, all of them have said they’re still hot for Obama. But, it seems a little more shallow now than it did last week to me. Even the wildly liberal DailyKos couldn’t find it in their soul to look for an upside to this. He did however, remarkably find a way to blame it on Republicans and media. ( Clue here Kos guys, Obama did the deed because he’s scared to death about an issue. How often will he capitulate on other conservative issues like, oh, let’s say, Faith Based Initiatives? )
Bottom line, this has been a rather disastrous week for Obama. Is he dead in the water? No way. He’s fresh, he’s enthusiastic, and he’s got Hollywood and main stream media completely in his pocket. However, the more he panders to the issues he’s staked his career by opposing to this point, the less enthusiastic his core will become. And, if he thinks by pandering to the conservatives will make them forget his previous history, he’ll learn a very powerful message in politics: Convservative voters never forget. Liberal voters generally tend to be a lot more flexible. However, it was Bush’s pandering to the “center” early in his presidency that cost him his unfettered support of his core. And, for the next eight years, he’s had only tepid support since. It was only the incredibly inept candidacy of John Kerry that kept him in office. The problem for Obama in my opinion, is John McCain is no John Kerry.
