Feel free to download and share.
Let’s Be Honest
I have grown really tired of the dishonesty not only coming from Obama, but also coming from the sycophantic media. He, and they, continue to perpetuate false hoods on a daily basis. Let’s take for instance the petulant need of Obama to constantly blame the bad economy on Bush’s policies. Well if we were honest about this issue, we would be blaming Congress, Democrats and Republicans alike, who used Fed money to incentivize banks to ignore their standard lending procedures, and give mortgages to people who would not normally qualify. This practice encouraged other sets of risky financial products, including the bundling of said securities and selling them off on the secondary market, which in turn created the derivatives debacle, and the risks continued to multiply. These sell off’s on behalf of the banks were designed to get those risky securities off of their books and on to someone else’s, and were certainly not a result of any of Bush’s policies. In fact, had Congress heeded the numerous warnings of Bush, we may not have found ourselves in this situation, however they did not, and representatives Frank and Waters applauded the efforts of the GSE’s as late as 2006, saying that there “was no problem with Fannie and Freddie”.
Another completely dishonest message Obama is trying to sell is that Bush deregulated the financial markets, which in fact he did not. Bush did not sign one piece of legislation deregulating the financial industry during his 8 years in office, not one. The last two pieces of legislation that lowered regulations on the financial sector were signed by Bill Clinton in 1999, and in fact as late as 2008, Clinton was defending that legislation, so again, blaming Bush for deregulation is not only wrong, it’s a lie and Obama and the media know it.
How can we ever get to the point of having an adult conversation on finding real and lasting solutions to our problems, if we are not honest about the origins? Here’s another one. Contrary to what Obama wants you to believe, this recession is not the worst recession since the great depression, not even close. In 1980 there was double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, and double digit unemployment, yet Reagan had it turned around by 1984 as a result of lowering tax burdens, lowering regulations and getting government out of the way. Obama has done the exact opposite – increasing regulations, increasing ancillary taxes, increasing the cost of living, and essentially injecting government in nearly every aspect of our life. The recent composite of the Life of Julia pretty much sums up what Obama believes – that many people are incapable of making it on their own without government help and this is a notion we need to move away from, by moving the Obama’s out of the White House on January 20, 2013.
A Pictorial Guide to Obama’s Handling of the Economy
Any questions?
I Still Say Jeb Bush Was Right
It’s perhaps predictable that I, the guy who started Blogs For Bush back in 2003, would be defending Jeb Bush over comments he made this week suggesting that Ronald Reagan or George H. W. Bush would have hard time earning the Republican Party nomination today. Of course the thing is, I’ve been saying this for a while now, well before Jeb Bush said it this week.
So, yesterday I inserted my opinion into Cluster’s blog post on the subject, because I think it’s an issue worth intra-party discussion and reflection. Today, I have to respond to another piece on the subject, my friend S.E. Cupp’s commentary in the New York Daily News.
S.E. Cupp, like many other conservatives, took offense to Jeb’s comments, suggesting that Jeb switch parties if he really thinks Reagan isn’t conservative enough to get our party’s nomination:
Some of Reagan’s strongest opponents were, in fact, establishment Republicans — guys like Jeb Bush’s dad, who called Reagan’s fiscal policies “voodoo economics.”
If Reagan were alive today, he would probably find that some things have changed. But the party he loved and the causes he cared so deeply about are still here, still very much a part of the conservative movement.
She laid out a conservative case for Reagan. Here’s a few points:
- “He famously campaigned against state-sponsored welfare programs…”
- “Reagan so despised the caprice and power of organized labor that he told an entire fleet of air-traffic controllers to get the hell back to work.”
- “Reagan was so supportive of capital punishment he could make a Texan blush today..”
There are more examples… all of which have the same problem: these examples essentially all come from during his presidency or his campaign. But, as a hypothetical candidate in 2012 for the Republican Party nomination, we can’t look at Reagan, the two-term president, can we? It just doesn’t make sense, constitutionally or otherwise.
So, hypothetically speaking, what would have happened to Ronald Reagan in the 2012 primary, with the record of Ronald Reagan prior to January 20, 1981?
Based on what we saw in this year’s primary, with every single candidate being dubbed a RINO by supporters of opposing candidates, it’s not unreasonable to assume that Reagan being a former Democrat would have made many in the Tea Party skeptical, if not outright distrusting.
And then there’s his record as Governor of California. Though this occurred before I was born, it doesn’t take much Googling to find that there was and still is plenty of debate over just how conservative he was as governor.
But Reagan, like his Republican successors in presidential campaigns, campaigned on a conservative platform. Yes, as S.E. mentioned, today’s party did nominate McCain in 2008, and at CPAC 2008, when Mitt Romney ended his campaign paving the way for McCain to lock up the nomination, conservative activists all around me were furious. Those same activists were furious that the “conservative alternative to McCain” in 2008 would be their party’s nominee in 2012. Indeed, several of my conservative blogger/activist friends and counterparts put a lot of effort into a NotMittRomney campaign.
I’m not going to rehash the points I made the other day in Cluster’s blog post, but I am going say that it’s not a fair attack Jeb by using Reagan’s record as president. And yes, I am sure there are plenty of conservative cases for Reagan’s gubernatorial record, but there are also conservative cases against it, which most certainly would have been made… and in the internet age, Reagan’s path to the Republican nomination would have looked very different. There is no reason to believe that the Tea Party, or one of its many subgroups, wouldn’t have rallied against him for one reason or another, regardless of the conservative values and positions he ran on in 1980.
It’s not the party that’s the problem though, it’s the base… the voters who vote in primaries… we’ve grown less will to accept compromise. I’m not saying we trade in conservative values to achieve electoral victories, but we should be willing to take smaller steps in the right direction when bigger steps are less likely to be achieved.
For example: Senator Scott Brown’s 2010 special election victory came in part to Tea Party support from around the country. This year, as he tries for a full term, many of those supporters have turned away, because Brown has not been conservative enough. Apparently, to some conservative activists, a small step to the right is no longer worth investing in, even if it means a large step to the left is the alternative.
Activists on both sides of the aisle are becoming less tolerant of moderates in their party. There’s no use in denying it. When allegiances are made in primary it’s easier to brand the candidate you don’t support as RINO, than give them credit for a compromise that overal achieved a conservative end.
And Ronald Reagan would not have been immune to it.
Syria: How Global Power Works
Like this; from the New York Times:
With evidence that powerful new weapons are flowing to both the Syrian government and opposition fighters, the bloody uprising in Syria has thrust the Obama administration into an increasingly difficult position as the conflict shows signs of mutating into a full-fledged civil war.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said on Tuesday that the United States believed that Russia was shipping attack helicopters to Syria that President Bashar al-Assad could use to escalate his government’s deadly crackdown on civilians and the militias battling his rule. Her comments reflected rising frustration with Russia, which has continued to supply weapons to its major Middle Eastern ally despite an international outcry over the government’s brutal crackdown…
Meanwhile, the report goes on to note that the rebels are being armed by the Turks with assistance from other Muslim powers. Here’s what is actually going on:
No one outside of the precincts of the West gives a hoot about the sufferings of the Syrian people. We here in the United States are disgusted with the mayhem and slaughter but people who are not like us don’t care – they only look at the mayhem and slaughter and think, “can I gain any advantage out of it?”. No amount of moralizing by Obama and Clinton or anyone in the West will make the least impression upon the Turks, Russians, Iranian, Saudis or anyone else who is so far involved in the war in Syria. In fact, they’ll probably view such statements as a sign of weakness – figuring that if we really had a pair we’d intervene so we can grab what advantage we want out of the situation. Holding back and lecturing all concerned is, in the view of such people, the act of cowards.
Russia and Iran want to maintain their Syrian ally. Iran because it allows Iran to keep up pressure in Israel while also allowing Iran to project power in to the center of the middle east. Russia because Syria is on Turkey’s southern flank and puts the Turks between two fires if any Russo-Turkish conflict arises…plus it sticks a finger in our eye and Putin (utter fool that he is) thinks that Russia’s proper role is to oppose the United States (the truth is that Russia can only survive in alliance with the United States, but Putin is just too blinded by his Great Russian nationalism to see this). In service of this goal the Iranians have shipped thugs to Syria for the purpose of massacring Syrians who oppose the Assad regime (probably the very same thugs the Iranians use to massacre Iranians who oppose the Mullah’s regime in Teheran…so, they’re likely experienced killers who no how to choke off a rebellion). Russia won’t send troops but is clearly sending arms – and in spite of bland words to the contrary, is sending arms which are useful in fighting the increasingly competent Syrian rebels.
Turkey would love to turn Syria in to a satellite State – the Turks, after all, were the imperial overlords of Syria for more than four centuries and while we here in the United States might not know it, the Turks understand that controlling Damascus is just as important as controlling Baghdad if you want to dominate the middle east (this is why Iran continues to press their power in Iraq along with trying to sustain their ally in Syria). The Turks also have a very long history of enmity with the Russians (there have been, I think, 9 Russo-Turkish wars over the centuries) and so would love to reduce Russian influence in the area. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and other States in the area have a vested interest in curbing Iranian influence – and taking out Iran’s key ally in Damascus is worth a lot in Saudi eyes.
Our problem is that we have as President and Secretary of State two people who appear to have zero knowledge of how the world works. Obama and Clinton seem to think that there is, somewhere, a genuine desire in Syria and in the other players to end the bloodshed. There isn’t. There is a desire to win. Assad wants to win. The rebels want to win. Iran wants to win. Russia wants to win. Turkey wants to win. Saudi Arabia wants to win. All of them won’t win, of course – but they are all fighting for victory as they see it. We, under Obama and Clinton, don’t want to win – we don’t even know what we want other than an end to the violence; an admirable desire, but violence can be ended in good or bad ways. Obama and Clinton are ensuring that when the violence ends there is sure to be one nation which won’t have won: the United States.
Proper American policy in this matter is not to get involved in Syria – we have no dog in that hunt, unless we could grab Damascus and keep it. That would involve a major military offensive too fraught with risks right now to be envisioned. So, nothing to do in Syria – but we do have a strong interest in completely ending Syria’s (and, thus, Iran’s) role in Lebanon. Syria’s armed forces are, naturally, being concentrated on the rebels. I’ll bet their forces in Lebanon are thin on the ground: the opportunity is for us eject them completely – ending Syrian domination and at the same time vastly undercutting the ability of the Iran-backed terrorist groups to operate there. It is a certainty that Lebanon’s Christian population wouldn’t be adverse to a change in Lebanon’s status – certainly in the southern regions of the country, which we are most concerned about as it borders Israel. A bit of thought and effort and some coordination with Israel and the thing could be done…by the time Syria is able to respond, it would be too late.
Will we do this? Not a chance – Obama doesn’t even see it. I doubt that anyone in his Administration does. So, we’ll get more liberal hand-wringing while the Russian and Iranians battle it out with the Turks and Saudis and the winner of that not only gets Syria, but Lebanon thrown in to the bargain. Just monumental stupidity brought about by rank ignorance on the part of our leadership.
Obama Losing African-American Support?
Last week, in an update to an open thread, I linked to an article which shows that under Obama black Americans have suffered greatly, with black unemployment rising to ruinous levels. I asked, rhetorically, if these conditions will really cause black Americans to once again award 95% of their votes to Obama. My thinking was, yes, it would. Though I expect black turnout to be lower in 2012 as a percentage of the total vote than 2008, I fully expected a repeat of the overwhelming support for Obama.
Perhaps I was wrong – this poll (PDF) by the Democrat-leaning PPP shows Romney gaining the support of 20% of North Carolina African-American voters. To be sure, the polling sample of black voters is small; about 200 respondents. But, still – my goodness! If Romney can really win 20% of the black vote then not only is Obama doomed but about 2o or 30 House seats suddenly become “in play” for the November election (the Democrats have about that many House seats which are theirs by gift of a 90%+ black vote in favor of the Democrats…if that drops a bit, the Democrats lose the seat). It is poll results like this which must be costing Axelrod many a sleepless night.
Count on it that Obama will sweep the African-American vote by an overwhelming majority – but if there is really any movement to Romney then it is going to be a stunning political change. Maybe, at the end of the day it will take a black liberal to destroy African-American loyalty to the Democrats?
As an aside, the overall poll shows Romney up 48-46 over Obama in North Carolina – in line with the “battleground” status of North Carolina for 2012. On the other hand, the polling sample is 44% Democrat, 36% Republican. Almost certainly on November 6th the turnout will be more in line with 40%+ GOPer and no better than 35% or so Democrat…meaning that you can add at least 5 points to Romney’s total in this poll. I never believed stories that North Carolina was competitive for the Democrats in 2012 and I’m more certain than ever it won’t be – watch for the Democrats to pull the plug on the State right after the convention.
Jeb Bush and Ideology
Yesterday Jeb Bush strongly suggested that the GOP was too rigid ideologically and that the party needed to be more flexible to attract a larger block of voters, and while I disagree with Bush, I want to thank him for bringing this subject up because I believe it is a win for conversatives to have this conversation.
First of all, I agree with Amazona when she says that ideology is the foundation of any individual and/or party platform. Ideology drives policy, so if you understand their ideology, you will know and understand the policies they will promote. The ideology that is at the core of the tea party and most conservatives is that of a more constitutionally based government at both the federal and state level, and that is an ideological belief that should always be rIgid.
The decentralized outline for government that is found in the Constitution is, to parapharase Churchhill; “….is not the best form of government but it is the best so far”, and the same can be said about free enterprise. It may not be the best economic platform, but it is the best so far. Capitalism, for all it’s faults, is the most effective economical system ever, in terms of creating more wealth for more people and for creating a higher standard of living for everyone. And contrary to liberal thought, conservatives do want to provide safety nets for those in need, but we want it administered at a local level where it can be more effective, efficient, and help more people.
The good news is that I think the voters are starting to figure that out with the 2010 elections, and then again in Wisconsin. So let’s continue this conversation, and if you are a liberal, please tell me where I am wrong.
UPDATE, by Matt Margolis: I would like to take this opportunity to go on the record saying that I think Jeb Bush was right.. to a degree.
Sorry Cluster, but I have to weigh in.
Yes, I agree with Jeb. But, I see this as a problem with both the major parties, and a problem that starts not with elected officials, but with the voters… Let’s be honest about what’s been happening in recent years. The internet has empowered the extremes on the left and the right by giving them a venue to build an audience and influence. This naturally will result in the ability for these groups to influence people in power.
In recent years we’ve seen elected Democrats and Republicans lose primary battles because they weren’t liberal or conservative enough. Joe Lieberman went from being his party’s Vice Presidential nominee to be booted out. In 2010, Christine O’Donnell beat the more moderate, but more electable Republican Mike Castle, only to lose a winnable U.S. Senate seat in the general election.
This past year, we saw every single candidate in the Republican presidential primary labeled a RINO by supporters of a different candidate. So, yes, I believe that Ronald Reagan would never have made it through this year’s primary, because he was a former Democrat.
Barack Obama, the most extreme left-winger to occupy the White House, isn’t considered liberal enough by left-wing bloggers, and hasn’t exactly won praises from them.
So, let’s be honest about what’s going on, and who’s to blame. We, as bloggers and activists, are criticizing our leaders for compromising or for merely for working with the other side just to get things done. We’ll dissect a voting record to find a few black marks just to feel justified in opposing a decent public servant of our party. Let’s wake up.
Because He Can
So why is Obama doing such a poor job, and getting away with it? Because he can, courtesy of a complicit media and an American populace with a very short attention span. Case in pointing is the recent call by Obama to put recently laid off teachers, and other public sector employees back to work. Well, the reason why they are being laid off in the first place is because the 2009 stimulus money is drying up, which was a temporary fix to begin with, but the administration won’t remind you of that and neither will the media. They both know that many people will fall for another temporary fix and they can get away with demogoging this issue one more time for political gain. Second case in point is the Bush tax rate cuts, which now should be called the Obama tax rate cuts. While the administration and the media continue to blame those rate cuts for the deficits, many people have forgotten that in December of 2010, Obama and a democratically controlled congress chose to extend those rate cuts, but again, they won’t remind you of that.
Maybe the most egregious example of this grand hoodwink the media and the administration are playing on America, is the Administration line that North America only has 2% of the worlds oil reserves. That is an entirely skewed number based only on identified reserves with completed EIS studies that have already been planned for extraction. The fact is, North America has nearly equal the crude reserves that Saudi Arabia has, as is being discovered with the Baaken Fields in North Dakota. There are many other examples of the media laying cover for this president – remember “shovel ready jobs”? By Obama’s own admission, those jobs “weren’t so shovel ready”, but that is of course assuming that Obama knew what he was talking about? It is past the time we demand that not only our elected officials be more competent and honest, but we must also demand that from the media. The lengths to which our media has promoted and provided cover for this president should possibly be investigated, and should certainly serve to inform future generations on how not to conduct themselves as journalists.
More media cover for the Obama administration. The media will gladly give time to Nuns and Priests that support the regimes efforts, but ignore the lawsuits and the protests. ABC, CBS, and NBC stayed true to their liberal slant and ignored the 164 rallies across the United States on Friday against the federal government’s abortifacient/birth control mandate under ObamaCare.
Whatever Happened to Compromise?
In the previous thread Robin Naismith Green ended a comment with the following question:
Enough blame how about some action and cooperation between the parties?
To which I responded:
Robin, the Tea Party is forcing the GOP to trend to the right at the same time that the Democrat Party has lurched violently to the left. I’m not sure how you get cooperation between such polar opposites. For example, which of the principles that guide your thinking would you be willing to compromise on? Which of our principles do you think we should compromise on. What is the ultimate goal if we both give up a little? Specifically, can you picture a country where we all get along, and how would you accomplish that when we clearly don’t want the same things. Would the ultimate compromise be to make each of us equally miserable?
And then Amazona added:
Good question. But you need to ask the right questions first. For example, the first step toward working together is agreeing on a goal. Cooperation happens when both sides agree on a goal and then only have to find ways to achieve that goal, which usually involves some give-and-take. What we are seeing, and have seen for quite some time, is goals being thrown under the bus in favor of gross and blatant demagoguery.
Example: Let’s say the Left says its goal is to feed poor children. The Right agrees, this is a worthy goal. Therefore, the next step ought to be rational discussion about how best to do this. But what happens is, the Left says there is one way to do this and only one way, their way, which happens to totally contradict the Right’s objective political philosophy, so letting the Left have its way would not be compromise, it would be capitulation.
So poor children do not get fed. BUT….the true goal of the Left is met, which was never the feeding of poor children but the demonizing of the Right, because once the Right has walked away from an entirely dogmatic and unacceptable position the Left can then trumpet its claim that the Right doesn’t care if children go hungry. And this was the intent from the get-go.
So if you truly want cooperation and true compromise, drop the either/or paradigm, and agree that the goals are shared and the only thing left is to figure out how to meet them.
We often talk about compromise. Compromise used to be the glue that held our government together and made it work. It was an historic compromise back in 1983 that extended the solvency of Social Security by 2 decades. But when George Bush attempted to reform and save Social Security again early in his first term, saying publicly that EVERYTHING was on the table, compromise was nowhere to be found. It appeared to anyone who was paying attention that for Democrats, the campaign value of being able to say that Republicans wanted to destroy Social Security was greater than actually fixing the program for future generations.
So when exactly did compromise die? And, unless you’re living under a rock, you’d have to admit that, if it’s not dead, it’s at least in a coma. Many on the Left cite Newt Gingrich as the single individual who banished compromise from the D.C. lexicon, and in some respects, they would be right. But David Axelrod’s reference to Gingrich as the Godfather of Gridlock notwithstanding, Gingrich’s compromises with Bill Clinton probably accomplished more in terms of historical, meaningful legislation than any Speaker in my lifetime:
So what did Clinton and Gingrich accomplish during this era of (relatively) good feelings? Here are a few notable bills, each of which passed with broad, bipartisan majorities.
Telecommunications Act, 1996 — described by the Federal Communications Commission as “the first major overhaul of telecommunications law in almost 62 years.” The House passed the final version of the bill by a 414-16 margin, with 236 Republicans and 178 Democrats supporting it.
Welfare reform, 1996 — a landmark bill to end cash payments and instead encourage recipients to find work. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 328-101 margin, with 230 Republicans and 98 Democrats.
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, 1996 — a law that allowed people to change jobs without fearing the loss of their health insurance due to pre-existing conditions, as well as provisions dealing with health information privacy. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 421-2 margin, with 227 Republicans and 193 Democrats.
Taxpayer Relief Act, 1997 — which established a child tax credit, tuition tax credits, and penalty-free withdrawals from IRAs for education expenses and first-home purchases, as well as a decrease in the capital gains tax and limitations on the estate tax. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 389-43 margin, with 225 Republicans and 164 Democrats.
Balanced Budget Act, 1997 — a bill that cut spending in order to balance the budget by fiscal year 2002. The House passed the final version of the bill by a 346-85 margin, with 193 Republicans and 153 Democrats.
My feeling is that today’s lack of compromise is the result of two dynamics: distrust between the parties and the wide chasm that separates their respective agendas. I’m not sure exactly when the distrust factor entered the picture (at least in terms of modern-day politics), but a good guess would be the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA).
The ratio in the final deal — the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) — was $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. It sounded persuasive at the time. Believing it to be the only way to get spending under control, most of the president’s colleagues signed on. He disliked the tax hikes, of course, but he agreed to it as well.
You don’t have to be a Washington veteran to predict what happened next. The tax increases were promptly enacted — Congress had no problem accepting that part of the deal — but the promised budget cuts never materialized. After the tax bill passed, some legislators of both parties even claimed that there had been no real commitment to the 3-to-1 ratio.
So the question remains: how do we get compromise back? Or maybe a better question: do we want it back?
The Moment Obama Lost?
From Powerline, quoting Obama:
The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in.
And so, you know, if Republicans want to be helpful, if they really want to move forward and put people back to work, what they should be thinking about is how do we help state and local governments…
Three days ago the voters of Wisconsin rejected the notion that the people should pony up ever more so that government be flush with cash…and now Obama is asserting that if the GOP wants to be helpful, the way to do it is to get the people to pony up ever more so government can b flush with cash! This goes beyond stupid – this is an egregious rejection of basic reality. Whatever else the people might want, more government isn’t it.
If we can’t beat Obama, now, then we might as well close up shop for good. He’s just proven himself to be completely out of touch and in opposition to the direction Americans want to go.
Blogs For Victory 
You must be logged in to post a comment.