If we are to step back in time and gain insights to repair our economy, we don’t have to stop with FDR:

In the first half of last century two presidents inherited recessionary economies from their predecessors. Both campaigned on smaller government, and both blamed the profligate ways of the previous president for their economic problems. One ended the recession in less than three years; the other lengthened it by seven. One responded with laissez-faire capitalism; the other with unprecedented government expansion. Scholars rank one among the worst presidents ever; the other they rank as one of the best. These two men are Warren Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Warren Harding was elected president in 1920 at the end of World War I, directly following the popular Woodrow Wilson. Harding inherited an economy transitioning away from wartime production as well as decreasing international demand for many American goods that had driven economic growth during the war. American factories were retooling and soldiers were coming home looking for work. The nation’s output, by some measures, fell as much as 24 percent and unemployment more than doubled between 1920 and 1921. Between 1919 and 1921, farm income had dropped by 40 percent. The country was falling deep into recession.

Instead of bailing out failing businesses, expanding government, and redistributing taxpayer money with a “stimulus” plan, Harding responded by cutting spending and removing burdensome regulations and taxes. During his campaign, he argued, “We need vastly more freedom than we do regulation.” In stark contrast with the Bush-Obama response of ever-more government spending and debt, Harding had federal spending cut in half between 1920 and 1922 and ultimately ran a surplus.

As a result, the recession that started in 1920 ended before 1923. Lower taxes and reduced regulation helped America’s economy quickly adjust after the war as entrepreneurs and capital were freed to create jobs and push the economy to recover. Harding’s free market policies lead to the Roaring Twenties, known for technological advances, women’s rights, the explosion of the middle class, and some of the most rapid economic growth in American history.

Harding ran afoul of personal failings and was tainted by the horrific “Teapot Dome” scandal…but given that Obama is already has a taint of scandal to his Administration, lets not get too particular here. What we want right now is a road map out of our economic morass…and cutting spending and taxes is just what the economic doctor ordered. Its really just as simple as the Harding quote makes it – more freedom will result in more prosperity. There are, right now, millions of American champing at the bit for a chance to start their own business, or expand the one they already own…but they are held back not so much by economic uncertainty (even in the best of times starting a small business is the definition of “uncertainty”) but by concerns over taxation and regulation. No one knows what tomorrow will bring in the form of new government imposts and regulatory fiats, and you can’t plan if you are that uncertain about what may happen, government-wise.

If, on the other hand, Obama could assure the American people that he’ll spend less each year he’s in office and that he’ll at the very least keep President Bush’s tax cuts, that would be enough to get the economic ball rolling again. There would be enough certainty about government that people would feel comfortable risking their capital and their sweat equity in new ventures. This isn’t rocket science, boys and girls; its just economics. Allow people to produce and consume and, hey presto!, they will produce and consume…stick a government monkey-wrench in there, and you’ll seize the whole thing up. Will Obama be our new Harding, or our new monkey-wrench?

Interesting concept:

President Obama could do worse. Romney has a bad reputation among Congressional Democrats, so I can’t imagine they’d cotton to this. In fact, it’s highly unlikely. But what Romney, in a bipartisan fashion, was able to do in Massachusetts — even with caveats — is pretty much the same as what Obama wants to do on a national level. Karen Tumulty notes that Romney is the only American who can claim the provision of universal health care as a resume line. Didn’t help him in the GOP too much, but that’s another discussion. If Obama wanted to bring Romney into the cabinet, he’d have to balance him by appointing a pro-choicer to a top HHS post because there are so many controversial, sexuality-related programs in that department that apportion money. The thinking here is that Romney would be the White House health care czar and that a Democrat — Gov. Kitzhaber of Oregon, maybe — would move over to Health and Human Services.

It is a good fit and Romney could get things done that no Democrat could – and if we are to have some sort of national health system, better to have it with a bit of free market principles as Romney would certainly insert into the mix. It is highly unlikely, but these are strange times, and Obama is proving himself thus far inept at cabinet-building.

What really bugs me about this and Gates at Defense as well as other possible GOP appointments? That we GOPers might end up saving Obama from himself…in order to save the country, we might saddle ourselves with a second Obama term.

Ah, well, patriotism does at times require one to do distasteful things…

And her some times loyal minion, Duke Hoyer of JP Morgan ($35,300 in donations in 2008):

A group of more than 50 House Democrats has penned a letter to Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) imploring him to “restore this institution” and see that the House returns to a “regular order” process of legislating.

The letter, signed by a large number of the conservative Blue Dog Coalition and the centrist New Democratic Coalition, has not yet been sent. Members are still gathering signatures in an effort to send the strongest signal possible to all top House Democrats that the caucus is up in arms over the top-down method of legislating employed by Democrats since late last year…

…Since last year, many senior House Democrats — many of them subcommittee chairmen — have grown overly frustrated with how only small and select bands of legislators have been responsible for writing bills, such as the $700 billion Wall Street bailout as well as much of the $819 billion economic stimulus bill.

Democratic leaders have acknowledged that the “regular order” process of methodically developing and writing bills in subcommittees and committees has been abandoned recently. But they have defended the handling of such sensitive and important legislation by only an exclusive group of leadership and senior lawmakers as a necessary tactic during exceptional times.

This is probably the result of just what has turned out to be in that Obama-Pelosi-Ried We’ll-Spend-Your-Money-You-Just-Shut-The-Heck-Up Sink the Ship of State “Stimulus” bill – had these provisions been subjected to committee hearings and votes, a lot of the worst aspects wouldn’t have made it – because with these 50 moderate Democrats coupled with a clearly united GOP minority, nothing would get passed without it being a moderate, bi-partisan bill…unless, that is, Nancy and Co took the House members out of the loop and just presented them with a bill for an up or down vote. With Obama’s seal of approval on it, it was very hard for any Democrats to muster the courage to vote against it – those eleven who did are heroes, but these 50 who are now rebelling are also being heroic.

The linked article does claim that Pelosi is soliciting advice and input from rank and file House Democrats, but I consider that to be BS – she might ask for advice, but she’s certainly not actually doing anything with it. When 20% or so of your caucus goes public with dissent, it means that you’re just giving your side eyewash.

We do have a serious crisis on our hands here. Now, I don’t think that we’ll end up doing the very right thing (think massive cuts in spending), but we can at least do the least-bad thing, and that would be a round of immediate stimulus spending and tax cuts. This would at least restore a measure of confidence and we might be able to crawl out of this morass into 1 or 2% annual GDP growth by 2011. What Obama-Pelosi-Reid propose is that which is tailor made to turn a recession into a depression – its like watching a loved one getting involved a slow motion train wreck. Anyone with any sense at all can see where Obama and Co are headed, and for the most part we sat powerless to do anything to stop it – until the House GOP stood firm, and now these 50 Democrats have also stood up to be counted.

We can work this out, boys and girls, and force through a bill which Obama will have to sign and which will if not cure our ills, at least make them manageable. Three cheers of these House Democrats, and lets hope this attitude starts to spread.

Today brings the total to three Obama nominees who have had to withdraw their names from consideration due to scandals. Today’s newbies to the Wall of Shame are Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer.

It seems like most (if not all) of Obama’s nominees have been tainted in someway. It certainly destroys Obama’s claim that what he lacks in experience he makes up for in judgment.

So I guess that leaves us with a president who has zero experience and really poor judgment.

Which is the title of a really good song by the Moody Blues – but also a good time for an open thread.

First, some poetry:

Let those who are in favour with their stars

Of public honour and proud titles boast,

Whilst I, whom fortune of such triumph bars

Unlook’d for joy in that I honour most.

Great princes’ favourites their fair leaves spread

But as the marigold at the sun’s eye,

And in themselves their pride lies buried,

For at a frown they in their glory die.

The painful warrior famoused for fight,

After a thousand victories once foiled,

Is from the book of honour razed quite,

And all the rest forgot for which he toiled:

Then happy I, that love and am beloved,

Where I may not remove nor be removed.

– Wm. Shakespeare

Then a joke:

Why Beer Is Better Than Obama

Beer is better than Obama because soldiers like beer.

Beer is better than Obama because beer doesn’t mind if you cling to your beer.

Beer is better than Obama because sailors like beer.

Beer is better than Obama because beer doesn’t mind if you own an SUV.

Beer is better than Obama because marines like beer.

Beer is better than Obama because beer isn’t a lawyer.

Beer is better than Obama because beer and whine don’t mix.

Now, have at it.

From the paper which essentially says Obama can do no wrong:

When President Obama nominated former Senator Tom Daschle to be his secretary of health and human services, it seemed to be a good choice. Mr. Daschle, as the co-author of a book on health care reform, knew a lot about one of the president’s signature issues. As a former Senate majority leader, he also knew a lot about guiding controversial bills through Congress, where he remains liked and respected by former colleagues.

Unfortunately, new facts have come to light — involving his failure to pay substantial taxes that were owed and his sizable income from health-related companies while he worked in the private sector — that call into question his suitability for the job. We believe that Mr. Daschle ought to step aside and let the president choose a less-blemished successor.

Of course, if you read the entire editorial you won’t find the Times condemning Obama for being fool enough to appoint someone like Daschle…to do that would also call into question Obama’s judgement on a bunch of his other nominees with, as they say, “ethical lapses” (what we say is they’re crooks, but such phraseology is banned when describing Democrats). The MSM is still in full-blown worship mode as it relates to Obama, but the plain fact of the matter is that Obama has assembled a which is going to be the major stumbling block to enacting Obama’s plans. A collection of has-beens, crooks and hacks with only one or two adults in the whole mix (hard to believe that we’re relying upon Hillary and Panetta to keep Obama’s Administration more or less up on the rails).

This is what we get when we elect to the Presidency a man who, point blank, is not fitted by knowledge or experience to be President. We can only hope he has the stomach for the job and that he’s a really quick learner.

Meanwhile, Daschle has to go – and Obama should figure out the best way of getting rid of a couple other albatrosses ’round his neck (Holder immediately springs to mind) as soon as he can ease them out without too much of a fuss.

Has been handsomely won, and while we go forward backing our Commander in Chief in his efforts to win in Afghanistan, settle the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and put a lid on Iran, we must keep in mind that in his first real foray into foreign and military affairs, he goofed up really, really bad:

Iraq held provincial elections in an environment of calm that would have been unimaginable two years ago. That the elections came off in such an orderly, peaceful manner is further testament to the success of the surge and suggests that the change American efforts have achieved in Iraq’s security environment may be sustainable over the long run.

We won’t know the final results of the elections for weeks, but early reports are that Sunni and Shiite secular parties have fared relatively better than their religious counterparts. If this is the case, it will be a step toward empowering Iraqis locked out of the current power structure and making Iraqi politics more truly representative.

You on the left need to take a lesson here – first off, realize how very wrong you were to call for withdrawal timetables; you were also wrong to call the campaign in Iraq lost; you were further wrong when you said that we can’t implant democracy into the Moslem world. A bit of humility is your best medicine right now – that and start learning a bit about war and foreign affairs, and chuck all your books by Noam Chomsky in the garbage, as they aren’t even worth recycling. Right now, it is your guy Obama who has the ball – and you can help him help America, or you can fail him and fail America. The war isn’t over, and there is some hard fighting left to do and we might be called upon to do the very same things President Bush had to do…but this time, it’d be nice if you’d get behind our military and act like patriots, for once.

Shows that when Obama starts appointing leftwing fanatics to the courts, we can work up a popular opposition to it:

Nearly two-thirds of U.S. voters (64%) say U.S. Supreme Court decisions should be based on what is written in the Constitution, but only 35% think President Obama agrees with them.

Twenty-seven percent (27%) say high court rulings should be guided by fairness and justice, and nine percent (9%) are not sure which is more important, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

A slight plurality of voters (38%) say Obama thinks the Supreme Court should base its decisions on fairness and justice. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure.

The courts are a vital thing, because that is really where liberals hope to make the running – knowing that they can’t really get their programs through the legislature, they seek to use the courts as a judicial legislature to impose their views by judicial fiat. But, wonder of wonders, a majority – at least according to this survey – believe that the Courts should just rule on the law and leave legislating to the legislature, or to the people, presumptively.

There is a core of conservatism at the center of the American population – and it is why our democratic republic has endured so long. In the end, a republic can be conservative, or it won’t long be a republic. The self-discipline necessary for a functioning republic only comes from an adherence to a strict code of morals – without this, a republic will disintegrate into a mobocracy as prelude to a dictatorship. The fact that after decades of relentless leftwing attempts to undermine the constitution and convince people that nebulous concepts such as “fairness” should guide our courts, the American people appear to want the law to be the guidance of the courts.

Working in tune with this basic American conservatism, we can thwart the worst aspects of Obama’s liberalism and eventually regain power.

For which act I give him credit for thinking clearly on this tricky matter:

Obama preserves renditions as counter-terrorism tool

The role of the CIA’s controversial prisoner-transfer program may expand, intelligence experts say.

The CIA’s secret prisons are being shuttered. Harsh interrogation techniques are off-limits. And Guantanamo Bay will eventually go back to being a wind-swept naval base on the southeastern corner of Cuba.

But even while dismantling these programs, President Obama left intact an equally controversial counter-terrorism tool.

Under executive orders issued by Obama recently, the CIA still has authority to carry out what are known as renditions, secret abductions and transfers of prisoners to countries that cooperate with the United States.

Current and former U.S. intelligence officials said that the rendition program might be poised to play an expanded role going forward because it was the main remaining mechanism — aside from Predator missile strikes — for taking suspected terrorists off the street.

As I’ve said before, I don’t think that Obama will close Gitmo, at least not before January of 2013…when he’s either safely re-elected or equally safely defeated for re-election, and thus a released Gitmo terrorist no longer poses a political threat to Obama and his Democrats (hey, they are Democrats – and that means that everything takes a back seat to political power). After all is said and done, unless Obama proves to be the biggest fool in history (which I don’t think he is) he’ll end up retaining most, if not all, President Bush’s anti-terrorism policies…even if some of them are disguised by new terminology and/or are revived under different guise shortly after being “ended” by Obama.

While the left was shrieking in complete absurdity about threats to American liberty and violations of human rights under President Bush, the fact remains that no liberties were threatened and no one’s rights were violated. All we did, under President Bush, was work out the best means available for dealing with terrorists once captured – the alternatives to doing what Bush did were to either shoot them out of hand, or turn them loose, neither action being in our best interests. It really is a difficult situation – we’re dealing with men who are very wicked and who’s home countries often don’t want them back, except perhaps to kill them.

President Obama, to his shame, joined in with the leftwing slanders about what we were doing – but now that he’s President he’s probably having his eyes opened to just what sort of people we’re dealing with and just how narrow our margin of error is when dealing with people who believe that slaughtering innocent people is a good thing.

And now, lefties, where is your outrage? Of was there ever really anything to it outside of a hatred of all things Bush?

At least to some degree:

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday the massive stimulus bill backed by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could go down to defeat if it’s not stripped of unnecessary spending and focused more on housing issues and tax cut.

The Senate version of the bill, which topped out at nearly $900 billion, is headed to the floor for debate. The House bill totaled about $819 billion and earned no Republican votes, even though it easily passed the Democratic-controlled House. At some point lawmakers will need to compromise on the competing versions.

McConnell and other Republicans suggested that the bill needed an overhaul because it doesn’t pump enough into the private sector through tax cuts and allows Democrats to go on a spending spree unlikely to jolt the economy. The Republican leader also complained that Democrats had not been as bipartisan in writing the bill as Obama had said he wanted.

“I think it may be time … for the president to kind of get a hold of these Democrats in the Senate and the House, who have rather significant majorities, and shake them a little bit and say, ‘Look, let’s do this the right way,'” McConnell said. “I can’t believe that the president isn’t embarrassed about the products that have been produced so far.”

Anything the Congressional GOP can do to cut out the wasteful and worthless spending and add a bit of actual stimulus and/or tax cuts will just make it that more likely we’ll start to get out of this recession some time in the second half of 2010 or, perhaps, the first half of 2011…pass it as is, and we’re doomed to an economic depression which will last until a year or two after Obama and his Democrats are either booted out of office or, at least, are forced to apply supply-side economics to the problem. Of course, my preferred course of action is one which won’t happen, but which would put us on the best long-term course – admit we screwed up for the past 75 years or so and go back to a genuinely free market economic system. But we won’t do that – because we’re stupid (and I mean that in a nice way).

In the end, the election of Obama – the most overtly leftwing President America has ever had – might prove beneficial to conservatism in the long run. By showing how entirely out of touch the left is, Obama and his Democrats are just handing the GOP issue after issue to clobber them on in 2010 and beyond. But first we must try to save the economic life of the United States – even if by helping to kill the worst aspects of the bill we end up helping Obama.