Regardless of which side you are on or in which direction you feel the country is moving, I don't know how anyone could plausibly deny that the last 6 months have been eventful. I believe the country has changed, perhaps irreversibly; from my point of view, I just hope that it, in fact, is not permanent.
At the end of President Obama's first 6 months, whose influence can we clearly see has been exerted? Whose platform has increased? Who has dominated the discussion?
From a legislative and public image perspective, President Obama has successfully become the face of the way business is done in Washington in the 21st century. This is not shocking, on the one hand; he is ostensibly the world's most powerful man, after all. Yet, from another angle, it bears further examination.
This administration has not been without its gaffes. I should probably watch MSNBC more so that I can find out what is being said about Press Secretary Robert Gibbs by his fans. He seems laughable to me, and I don't mean that in a partisan way; Mike McCurry, for instance, was a fantastic Press Secretary and we know who his boss was. Scott McClellan, on the other hand, made me cringe long before he went native. So hopefully, I've established my bona fides, but not enough for some, I'm sure...Back to Gibbs; on Fox News Sunday this last week, he couldn't repeat enough times that the President had chosen his words poorly in the Gates-gate incident.
Quick, who is the Secretary of State???
Now that you've paused to remember, where on earth is she? How many of you watched her appearance on "Meet the Press" last Sunday? (I meant to; I really did, but I had to slice potatoes or something.) Did you know she just went overseas again for another trip? What happened while she was there? Most of you really don't know the answers to these questions. Think about past Secretaries of State, even recent ones like Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, let alone Ronald Reagan's (George Shultz) or George Bush I's (James A. Baker III) and the profile they maintained, the news coverage they generated.
Now...who is the Secretary of the Treasury? How about the National Security Advisor? Is the attorney general a man or a woman? What have they been up to lately?
At breakfast with a friend yesterday, we were discussing this very thing. Obama's favorables have been very high until recently; they are now taking a dip, which caused us to consider what team Obama has backing him that are producing policies and driving the agenda, who also have a game plan for obstacles that are thrown in the way and for unseen emergencies that may arise. Our conclusion was that it all begins and ends with Barack Obama. This is good for him if trends move his way with little fluctuation because he gets the glory. If, however, ominous portents continue to emerge, the glossy image is going to cave and it will be come painfully obvious that there is nothing of substance behind the Wizard's curtain.
I dare not leave out Nancy Pelosi when discussing influence in Washington. She forced a stimulus bill through, as well as a Cap & Trade fiasco and is still asserting that the votes are there to pass Health Care. So she has to be credited for getting out there and racking up accomplishments even if I don't support them.
Bill O'Reilly also brought up a valid point last night on the "Factor." Rahm Emanuel is a manifest power in the White House. While not a name that non-political junkies would recognize, his fingerprints are everywhere. He is probably as powerful a Chief of Staff and enforcer as Karl Rove ever was (Rove, in theory, was just a Deputy CoS).
But there you have it. Obama, Pelosi, Emanuel (Rahm, not Jesus; see the Gospel of Matthew 1:23, if you don't get that).
As an admittedly impartial commentator, the remarkable fact to me is the unified stance and, as a result, the enhanced profile that conservatives and some professional Republicans have largely maintained in opposing the President. Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have ratings that are going through the roof. Jim DeMint, the Senator from South Carolina who holds a 100% rating from the American Conservative Union, is attracting the spotlight for his soft-spoken, but highly vocal opposition to Obama's programs. Sarah Palin, even while resigning from the Governorship in Alaska, has never received more attention from both her supporters and detractors. Minority Leader John Boehner has been resolute in leading the movement for truth in the House on health care, cap and trade and TARP II. And a good number of Republican footsoldiers in the House are out in the media on a regular basis sounding the socialist alarm, from Paul Ryan of Wisconsin to Eric Cantor of Virginia to Mike Pence of Indiana. Now we just need some legislative victories in 2010 to top it all off, as well as more Senators to assist Jim DeMint in his crusade for liberty. Senate Conservatives Fund, anyone?
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Friday, July 24, 2009
UPDATE: Obama's Waterloo
President Obama has manifested very deft political skills once again. Minutes ago, he went to the press room of the White House and spoke to the media. Evidently, he has been on the phone with both Sergeant Crowley (the police officer in question) and Professor Gates. Obama's statement just now was that his opinion was still that Crowley had probably overreacted, but that unfortunately, Gates had overreacted, as well. And to the extent that he, President Obama, had misspoken in characterizing the situation as he did, he regretted that.
He did not apologize but he projected empathy for both sides, in contrast to his gut reaction on Wednesday.
I find that I fear this President's initiatives more and more and that his policies are more extreme than I thought they were. But this shows that his instincts in regards to at least the appearance of personal skills are more highly attuned than the last two Presidents' were. Both Bush 43 and Clinton tended to dig in their heels when uncomfortable situations arose. Obama finds ways to neutralize the issue quickly in a way that will satisfy the broad middle.
I think it is safe to say that the danger of permanent infliction of harm to his reputation has passed, at least stemming from this particular incident. However, the pundits will probably continue to vocally ponder the story for the next week or so and we can expect to hear it subjected to further commentary on the Sunday shows. This is as it should be. The President's initial wording on Wednesday was insulting and unfair, but he did pivot well to cover his tracks today.
He did not apologize but he projected empathy for both sides, in contrast to his gut reaction on Wednesday.
I find that I fear this President's initiatives more and more and that his policies are more extreme than I thought they were. But this shows that his instincts in regards to at least the appearance of personal skills are more highly attuned than the last two Presidents' were. Both Bush 43 and Clinton tended to dig in their heels when uncomfortable situations arose. Obama finds ways to neutralize the issue quickly in a way that will satisfy the broad middle.
I think it is safe to say that the danger of permanent infliction of harm to his reputation has passed, at least stemming from this particular incident. However, the pundits will probably continue to vocally ponder the story for the next week or so and we can expect to hear it subjected to further commentary on the Sunday shows. This is as it should be. The President's initial wording on Wednesday was insulting and unfair, but he did pivot well to cover his tracks today.
Obama's Waterloo
We know the health care bill has been shelved for the time being. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid announced today that it is on hold until fall. This means we get a brief reprieve, but must stay vigilant.
It is too early to tell, but universal health care may not be the biggest of Obama's worries. I only tuned in for the last half of his press conference last night and completely missed the question and Obama's answer about the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest. I was in session all day today with my friends at the Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Institute (today's theme was Health Care; fortuitous, indeed?), so heard zero news. Tonight, at my weekly book study on The 5,000 Year Leap, the guys in my discussion group asked about it, and that was my introduction to the incident.
In one word, describing the police department's actions as "stupid," the President has poured salt into the gaping gash of racial tension in the United States. Barack Obama, who was supposed to be the great transcendent figure that would help us move beyond race, took sides in a conflict in which he was not in full possession of the facts.
I wrote all of the above before going to the Reuters recounting of the Gates incident. Reuters is far from a conservative news organization, yet here is how their reporter filed the story:
President Barack Obama plunged his presidency into a charged racial debate and set off a firestorm in one of America's most liberal bastions by siding with a black Harvard scholar who accuses police of racism.
Saying he was unaware of "all the facts" but that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, "acted stupidly" in their arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Obama whipped up emotions on both sides of an issue that threatens to open old wounds in America.
Need I say more?
President Obama has blundered, big time. Watch his ratings and observe where this story goes over the next week. He is already losing independents. This type of blatantly biased analysis is not what they seek from their commander-in-chief.
It is too early to tell, but universal health care may not be the biggest of Obama's worries. I only tuned in for the last half of his press conference last night and completely missed the question and Obama's answer about the Henry Louis Gates, Jr. arrest. I was in session all day today with my friends at the Hoosier Congressional Policy Leadership Institute (today's theme was Health Care; fortuitous, indeed?), so heard zero news. Tonight, at my weekly book study on The 5,000 Year Leap, the guys in my discussion group asked about it, and that was my introduction to the incident.
In one word, describing the police department's actions as "stupid," the President has poured salt into the gaping gash of racial tension in the United States. Barack Obama, who was supposed to be the great transcendent figure that would help us move beyond race, took sides in a conflict in which he was not in full possession of the facts.
I wrote all of the above before going to the Reuters recounting of the Gates incident. Reuters is far from a conservative news organization, yet here is how their reporter filed the story:
President Barack Obama plunged his presidency into a charged racial debate and set off a firestorm in one of America's most liberal bastions by siding with a black Harvard scholar who accuses police of racism.
Saying he was unaware of "all the facts" but that police in Cambridge, Massachusetts, "acted stupidly" in their arrest of Henry Louis Gates, Obama whipped up emotions on both sides of an issue that threatens to open old wounds in America.
Need I say more?
President Obama has blundered, big time. Watch his ratings and observe where this story goes over the next week. He is already losing independents. This type of blatantly biased analysis is not what they seek from their commander-in-chief.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
New health care developments
I'm watching a replay right now on C-Span of a joint presser that Senators Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Max Baucus of Montana, both Democrats, held earlier today. (There may have been other Senators participating as well; I tuned in about 10 minutes ago.) Conrad just said that he never did believe that a bill would get through in time for the August recess. And Baucus, who spoke prior to Conrad, had very high words of praise for Doug Elmendorf, the Congressional Budget Office chairman who has come under such fire for insisting that the Obama health care plan is demonstratively unaffordable.
Baucus did spin a little when describing the White House's hardball tactics towards Elmendorf; Baucus opined that Elmendorf hadn't been mistreated, but even with that aside, it is still clear that something is afoot. There is a huge crack in the shield of mystique around this President.
The Congressional Budget Office is one of those agencies that is regarded as independent, yet the Obama White House is playing politics with the numbers that the CBO has run and the ensuing figures that have been produced. Harry Reid snidely asserted that Elmendorf "ought to think about running for office." (Oh, the Freudian layers we could deduce from that.)
I saw probably the last half hour tonight of Obama's own press conference. Bill O'Reilly characterized the press as "docile." I differed with that assessment; I felt the President was actually quite defensive and that the press was very forthright in their questioning.
There are no transcripts up yet that I can find of the questions that the reporters asked, but it was around the third to last question that I noted. It was posed by a female reporter who asked the President if he felt there was anything to the allegations that transparency had been lacking in his White House, specifically surrounding who exactly all the President's appointees are. (I presume she meant the czars.) Obama's reply was very testy, something about "Your cameras have been here all along; you've seen who has been present." Classy.
It is becomingly increasingly apparent, if it ever was not, that this White House has no qualms whatsoever about viscerally personal kneecaps when they feel threatened. The heroic Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, has dared to step out and say things about this President's agenda that are perceived as just not collegial enough. His statement earlier this week about universal health care was as follows: "If President Obama does not pass universal health care, this will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
The shoe fit...and the President is hitting back, claiming that DeMint has never done anything to reform health care. DeMint has counterpunched and has an ad that is going up nationwide later this week that, I believe, will reference all of the health care reform bills he has sponsored (of course, the reform is not governmental in its origin, so it isn't legitimate according to the Left).
So clearly, the Saul Alinsky-style tactics are in full swing again, as President Obama seeks to marginalize yet another opponent through smears and innuendo. Let us hope that this particular attempt works as well as the attack on Rush Limbaugh for daring to state that he hoped that the President fails.
Baucus did spin a little when describing the White House's hardball tactics towards Elmendorf; Baucus opined that Elmendorf hadn't been mistreated, but even with that aside, it is still clear that something is afoot. There is a huge crack in the shield of mystique around this President.
The Congressional Budget Office is one of those agencies that is regarded as independent, yet the Obama White House is playing politics with the numbers that the CBO has run and the ensuing figures that have been produced. Harry Reid snidely asserted that Elmendorf "ought to think about running for office." (Oh, the Freudian layers we could deduce from that.)
I saw probably the last half hour tonight of Obama's own press conference. Bill O'Reilly characterized the press as "docile." I differed with that assessment; I felt the President was actually quite defensive and that the press was very forthright in their questioning.
There are no transcripts up yet that I can find of the questions that the reporters asked, but it was around the third to last question that I noted. It was posed by a female reporter who asked the President if he felt there was anything to the allegations that transparency had been lacking in his White House, specifically surrounding who exactly all the President's appointees are. (I presume she meant the czars.) Obama's reply was very testy, something about "Your cameras have been here all along; you've seen who has been present." Classy.
It is becomingly increasingly apparent, if it ever was not, that this White House has no qualms whatsoever about viscerally personal kneecaps when they feel threatened. The heroic Senator from South Carolina, Jim DeMint, has dared to step out and say things about this President's agenda that are perceived as just not collegial enough. His statement earlier this week about universal health care was as follows: "If President Obama does not pass universal health care, this will be his Waterloo. It will break him."
The shoe fit...and the President is hitting back, claiming that DeMint has never done anything to reform health care. DeMint has counterpunched and has an ad that is going up nationwide later this week that, I believe, will reference all of the health care reform bills he has sponsored (of course, the reform is not governmental in its origin, so it isn't legitimate according to the Left).
So clearly, the Saul Alinsky-style tactics are in full swing again, as President Obama seeks to marginalize yet another opponent through smears and innuendo. Let us hope that this particular attempt works as well as the attack on Rush Limbaugh for daring to state that he hoped that the President fails.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Health Care Reform Deja Vu
You probably don't have to be much younger than I am (I turned 34 in May) not to remember Hillarycare at all. Universal health care coverage was one of the key planks that candidate Bill Clinton promised when he ran for President in 1992. Clinton became a much more moderate President in the final 6 years of his 2 terms because of having to work with Newt Gingrich and a GOP Congress. Many of us forget, and again, some of us weren't old enough to remember how much he tried to overreach in his first 2 years. (He almost looks conservative when you compare Clinton's spending levels to those of George W. Bush, not to mention the present administration.)
Clinton appointed his wife, who of course was unelected by the American people, to oversee the whole health care process. She did so in a very secretive way, refusing to release the names of the people who were on the task force considering various health care proposals. Ira Magaziner was a pseudo-intellectual type who worked with Hillary on this particular effort, but his was about the only name that was released to the public. As the details of the bill trickled out, protests began to stir in the country at large, as well as on Capitol Hill, but the Clintons refused to budge or entertain any dissent whatsoever.
Because of their unyielding stance and the perception that they had something to hide, not to mention the fact that the bill itself was monstrously huge and stuffed with pork, ultimately Hillarycare went down in glorious flames.
Fast forward 16 years. A friend who works in Congressman Steve Buyer's office e-mailed me a copy of the government flow chart that will become reality if universal health care passes under President Obama's strident championship. Her admonition? "Read it and weep." She wasn't kidding much. I had seen John Boehner put up the same chart on TV a few days ago, but hadn't really tuned in. This labyrinthine maze of who reports to whom and which organizations receive funding from which endowments and which official OK's which appropriation, etc., etc. is mentally exhausting at just a cursory glance.
This may be intentional for a number of reasons, but it may also be inevitable. Universal health care will mean yet another expansion of government, and of course, all of the czarships that have been created within the last few months have to make sure they protect their turf, not to mention all of the cabinet agencies and undersecretaries and deputy assistants who have to offer their input...it is mind-boggling.
Support for this effort is sinking, which is heartening. People realize we are out of money. The President even admits it and says health care provision must not broaden the deficit. How can it NOT? Yet President Obama declares that we have "talked this problem to death" and the time for action has come. Yet, this obfuscates the fact that we have no assurance that the current plan being considered in Congress will cover all of the uninsured. We do know that it will change the health care system of the United States forever and create yet another massive bureaucracy.
For this reason alone, it must be opposed. But, one must also ask what role we should play as custodians of our own health? More on that tomorrow.
Clinton appointed his wife, who of course was unelected by the American people, to oversee the whole health care process. She did so in a very secretive way, refusing to release the names of the people who were on the task force considering various health care proposals. Ira Magaziner was a pseudo-intellectual type who worked with Hillary on this particular effort, but his was about the only name that was released to the public. As the details of the bill trickled out, protests began to stir in the country at large, as well as on Capitol Hill, but the Clintons refused to budge or entertain any dissent whatsoever.
Because of their unyielding stance and the perception that they had something to hide, not to mention the fact that the bill itself was monstrously huge and stuffed with pork, ultimately Hillarycare went down in glorious flames.
Fast forward 16 years. A friend who works in Congressman Steve Buyer's office e-mailed me a copy of the government flow chart that will become reality if universal health care passes under President Obama's strident championship. Her admonition? "Read it and weep." She wasn't kidding much. I had seen John Boehner put up the same chart on TV a few days ago, but hadn't really tuned in. This labyrinthine maze of who reports to whom and which organizations receive funding from which endowments and which official OK's which appropriation, etc., etc. is mentally exhausting at just a cursory glance.
This may be intentional for a number of reasons, but it may also be inevitable. Universal health care will mean yet another expansion of government, and of course, all of the czarships that have been created within the last few months have to make sure they protect their turf, not to mention all of the cabinet agencies and undersecretaries and deputy assistants who have to offer their input...it is mind-boggling.
Support for this effort is sinking, which is heartening. People realize we are out of money. The President even admits it and says health care provision must not broaden the deficit. How can it NOT? Yet President Obama declares that we have "talked this problem to death" and the time for action has come. Yet, this obfuscates the fact that we have no assurance that the current plan being considered in Congress will cover all of the uninsured. We do know that it will change the health care system of the United States forever and create yet another massive bureaucracy.
For this reason alone, it must be opposed. But, one must also ask what role we should play as custodians of our own health? More on that tomorrow.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Impressions of Sotomayor hearings so far
Along the lines of Senator Lindsey Graham's terminology in his opening statement, Sonia Sotomayor has avoided a complete meltdown and will thus be confirmed, probably by this time next week.
The Judiciary Committee hearings, however, have not been void of memorable moments and questions have been posed that were worthy of solid answers. At times, such replies were offered, and then there were the other occasions.
I have heard from so many commentators that I can't remember where this particular observation originated, but someone remarked along the way that the Republicans have displayed a startling degree of unanimity throughout this hearing. I agree. Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, signalled early on that the line of questioning would be polite, but tough. Sessions came at Sotomayor with marked skepticism over her comment that a "wise Latina woman" would make better decisions in certain instances than someone else who did not share that ethnic strand. It is noteworthy that early on, Sotomayor implicitly withdrew this phrasing, stating that it "fell flat" in the context in which she originally employed it and even that it was "bad." She did not say whether it was a bad choice of words or a bad premise; I suspect she meant the former and perhaps does not even realize that there is a world of difference even between these two designations.
Orrin Hatch of Utah followed up with a dizzying array of legal cases that, admittedly, I could not follow, but his line of questioning traced back again to the subject of empathetic judging, as opposed to strict legal reasoning.
Lindsey Graham, whom I generally regard as a less than ardent Republican (I'm being kind), did a superb job in what, again, another commentator referred to as "cross-examination in the style of the lawyer he is" (not exact verbiage, but close). I am not sure, though, how I feel about his questioning regarding whether or not Sotomayor had a temperament problem. When asked whether she felt she might indeed, encounter such difficulties, what was Sotomayor expected to say? "Yes, I think I might have real personality issues?" This begs the question: Why even ask that? It is true that a majority of her former colleagues on the Second Circuit posted such anonymous accusations. I also have to wonder if the same question would have been posed to a male candidate? Yet, when one considers the gutter-level accusations that were flung, with no substantiation, at Clarence Thomas, it is also veracious beyond dispute that Graham's question doesn't even begin to compare to the nastiness Thomas endured.
The Democrats on the Committee are so syrupy and give Sotomayor the verbal equivalent of a sloppy French kiss every time they speak. "What a wonderful woman! What an amazing life story! What level-headed ability! What respect for the law!" It is revolting.
But then, Arlen Specter, a recent Democrat proselyte, was so rude that I ended up feeling sorry for Sotomayor. Can't they find a middle ground?
Senator Al Franken was trying to impress somebody; I'm not sure who. But because of that, he mixed in a bit of demagoguery against originalism (calling it "judicial activism", in a burst of Orwellian brilliance) in the middle of his own brand of excessive delight over Sotomayor's "impressive qualifications."
All of this is interesting for a political junkie like me. I wish more of America were watching or were able to comprehend what they were seeing if they did. (Not that I understand every sentence, mind you, as I've noted previously...there, does that sound less elitist now?)
Fox News broke away for the last part of the day to cover the Kennedy Health Care bill, which Obama is determined to see passed by the August recess. More on that very soon.
The Judiciary Committee hearings, however, have not been void of memorable moments and questions have been posed that were worthy of solid answers. At times, such replies were offered, and then there were the other occasions.
I have heard from so many commentators that I can't remember where this particular observation originated, but someone remarked along the way that the Republicans have displayed a startling degree of unanimity throughout this hearing. I agree. Senator Jeff Sessions, the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, signalled early on that the line of questioning would be polite, but tough. Sessions came at Sotomayor with marked skepticism over her comment that a "wise Latina woman" would make better decisions in certain instances than someone else who did not share that ethnic strand. It is noteworthy that early on, Sotomayor implicitly withdrew this phrasing, stating that it "fell flat" in the context in which she originally employed it and even that it was "bad." She did not say whether it was a bad choice of words or a bad premise; I suspect she meant the former and perhaps does not even realize that there is a world of difference even between these two designations.
Orrin Hatch of Utah followed up with a dizzying array of legal cases that, admittedly, I could not follow, but his line of questioning traced back again to the subject of empathetic judging, as opposed to strict legal reasoning.
Lindsey Graham, whom I generally regard as a less than ardent Republican (I'm being kind), did a superb job in what, again, another commentator referred to as "cross-examination in the style of the lawyer he is" (not exact verbiage, but close). I am not sure, though, how I feel about his questioning regarding whether or not Sotomayor had a temperament problem. When asked whether she felt she might indeed, encounter such difficulties, what was Sotomayor expected to say? "Yes, I think I might have real personality issues?" This begs the question: Why even ask that? It is true that a majority of her former colleagues on the Second Circuit posted such anonymous accusations. I also have to wonder if the same question would have been posed to a male candidate? Yet, when one considers the gutter-level accusations that were flung, with no substantiation, at Clarence Thomas, it is also veracious beyond dispute that Graham's question doesn't even begin to compare to the nastiness Thomas endured.
The Democrats on the Committee are so syrupy and give Sotomayor the verbal equivalent of a sloppy French kiss every time they speak. "What a wonderful woman! What an amazing life story! What level-headed ability! What respect for the law!" It is revolting.
But then, Arlen Specter, a recent Democrat proselyte, was so rude that I ended up feeling sorry for Sotomayor. Can't they find a middle ground?
Senator Al Franken was trying to impress somebody; I'm not sure who. But because of that, he mixed in a bit of demagoguery against originalism (calling it "judicial activism", in a burst of Orwellian brilliance) in the middle of his own brand of excessive delight over Sotomayor's "impressive qualifications."
All of this is interesting for a political junkie like me. I wish more of America were watching or were able to comprehend what they were seeing if they did. (Not that I understand every sentence, mind you, as I've noted previously...there, does that sound less elitist now?)
Fox News broke away for the last part of the day to cover the Kennedy Health Care bill, which Obama is determined to see passed by the August recess. More on that very soon.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Senator McCain on Meet the Press
I have not watched "Meet the Press" much since Tim Russert's untimely death last year. I did see the show that Tom Brokaw hosted when Colin Powell announced his support for Barack Obama, last October sometime. Other than that, Fox News Sunday and ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopolous" have rounded out my Sunday show repertoire.
But I happened to catch John McCain's appearance in its entirety today. Not so surprisingly, I suppose, many of the questions, perhaps half, were about Sarah Palin's resignation. (By the way, have you noticed that Palin's decision to call it quits completely kicked Mark Sanford out of the headlines?)
Senator McCain, in no uncertain terms, made two things crystal clear. First, he defended Palin's move to step down as Governor of Alaska. The body language, as well as his actual verbiage, held nothing back from a resolute defense of what she had decided to do. Also, he reiterated that Palin is absolutely qualified to serve as the President of the United States by virtue of her existing political acumen, her experience as Mayor and Governor and her correct stances on the issues of the day.
John McCain is not my ideal politician, to say the least. I have, however, felt that he has gotten a bad rap from Glenn Beck (whom I highly admire and enjoy) and others who have implied that McCain has held back, at best, from dissuading his former aides, as well as the media, from piling on Palin ever since the campaign ended. This is not terribly fair; McCain seems to have moved on since the fighting days of 2008 and pretty much gone back to the business of being a Senator. One presumes that making a call to an erstwhile 2008 campaign assistant to ask him/her to lay off of laying into Palin is not at the top of McCain's to-do list, for starters. Additionally, having moved on, it probably just doesn't occur to him that often. And in the end, Palin will have to defend herself from her detractors, rather than waiting for her former benefactor to come to her aid. So believing the above to be true, I think John McCain was more than generous today in his defense of his 2008 running mate. I'll go further and say he showed himself a true gentleman.
On an ancillary note...David Gregory is developing some chops as MTP host. In spite of my initial instincts, I was impressed today. His questions to both McCain and Senator Chuck Schumer were tough, but even-handed and fair. He'll never be Russert, but if he can project a lack of bias by equal scrappiness with all comers, David Gregory could bump up the ratings of a network that is suffering from accusations of extreme leftism.
But I happened to catch John McCain's appearance in its entirety today. Not so surprisingly, I suppose, many of the questions, perhaps half, were about Sarah Palin's resignation. (By the way, have you noticed that Palin's decision to call it quits completely kicked Mark Sanford out of the headlines?)
Senator McCain, in no uncertain terms, made two things crystal clear. First, he defended Palin's move to step down as Governor of Alaska. The body language, as well as his actual verbiage, held nothing back from a resolute defense of what she had decided to do. Also, he reiterated that Palin is absolutely qualified to serve as the President of the United States by virtue of her existing political acumen, her experience as Mayor and Governor and her correct stances on the issues of the day.
John McCain is not my ideal politician, to say the least. I have, however, felt that he has gotten a bad rap from Glenn Beck (whom I highly admire and enjoy) and others who have implied that McCain has held back, at best, from dissuading his former aides, as well as the media, from piling on Palin ever since the campaign ended. This is not terribly fair; McCain seems to have moved on since the fighting days of 2008 and pretty much gone back to the business of being a Senator. One presumes that making a call to an erstwhile 2008 campaign assistant to ask him/her to lay off of laying into Palin is not at the top of McCain's to-do list, for starters. Additionally, having moved on, it probably just doesn't occur to him that often. And in the end, Palin will have to defend herself from her detractors, rather than waiting for her former benefactor to come to her aid. So believing the above to be true, I think John McCain was more than generous today in his defense of his 2008 running mate. I'll go further and say he showed himself a true gentleman.
On an ancillary note...David Gregory is developing some chops as MTP host. In spite of my initial instincts, I was impressed today. His questions to both McCain and Senator Chuck Schumer were tough, but even-handed and fair. He'll never be Russert, but if he can project a lack of bias by equal scrappiness with all comers, David Gregory could bump up the ratings of a network that is suffering from accusations of extreme leftism.
Saturday, July 11, 2009
The case for civility
I am disturbed a lot these days. Sometimes, I'm even angry! Irate! FURIOUS! Our nation is headed down the wrong path and I have to fulfill my conservative duty, which, in William F. Buckley, Jr's immortal reference, is to "Stand athwart history, yelling 'STOP'!" And I will certainly be yelling the whole time! Louder and LOUDER!
But I wonder...is this really the most effective way to persuade the culture of the efficacy of my values? The old adage about catching more flies with honey is not a particularly appealing mental image, but there is a lot of truth in it, nonetheless.
I am bothered, especially in the blogosphere, but in the political arena at large, by the lack of civility that I observe at times. I refuse to read the Daily Kos, for instance; the venom that is spewed there is unconscionable. But let's face it; I probably wouldn't be posting about this if these problems were limited to the liberals, the Democrats, the socialists...the other side, in essence.
There is no one who will mount a stronger argument than I will for the absolute necessity of standing with unflinching strength for the principles of liberty, for Judeo-Christian values in the public square and for government in the mould of the Founding Fathers. When either side, Democrat or Republican, strays from these ideals, we need to call them on it with clarion resonance.
But as we demand an accounting from our government and the media, let us do so with a forthright sense of compassion and justice. It is, for instance, not slanderous, inappropriate or dishonest to refer to President Obama's policies as socialist. That is description, not an attack. It is cruel and mean-spirited, however, to label the President as a "dirty, Muslim pig", a smear I have seen from at least one conservative. (For my fellow Christian believers out there, the un-Biblical essence of such verbiage is also worthy of discussion, but we'll save that for another time.)
As he has in so many ways, Indiana's own Congressman Mike Pence has led the way in making this very argument and in living it out in his own political career. No one exemplifies conservative leadership more than Mike Pence does and no one exceeds his articulate abilities. At times, his vigorous displeasure is manifestly apparent. Yet, the raised voices and unpleasantness that characterize a certain aspect of political debate today are never exhibited by the Congressman from Indiana's 6th District.
I can guarantee I'll be writing more about this later, possibly very soon. In the meantime, I am determined to engage in more contemplation about espousing my convictions and philosophy with determination, but with evenness and empathy.
But I wonder...is this really the most effective way to persuade the culture of the efficacy of my values? The old adage about catching more flies with honey is not a particularly appealing mental image, but there is a lot of truth in it, nonetheless.
I am bothered, especially in the blogosphere, but in the political arena at large, by the lack of civility that I observe at times. I refuse to read the Daily Kos, for instance; the venom that is spewed there is unconscionable. But let's face it; I probably wouldn't be posting about this if these problems were limited to the liberals, the Democrats, the socialists...the other side, in essence.
There is no one who will mount a stronger argument than I will for the absolute necessity of standing with unflinching strength for the principles of liberty, for Judeo-Christian values in the public square and for government in the mould of the Founding Fathers. When either side, Democrat or Republican, strays from these ideals, we need to call them on it with clarion resonance.
But as we demand an accounting from our government and the media, let us do so with a forthright sense of compassion and justice. It is, for instance, not slanderous, inappropriate or dishonest to refer to President Obama's policies as socialist. That is description, not an attack. It is cruel and mean-spirited, however, to label the President as a "dirty, Muslim pig", a smear I have seen from at least one conservative. (For my fellow Christian believers out there, the un-Biblical essence of such verbiage is also worthy of discussion, but we'll save that for another time.)
As he has in so many ways, Indiana's own Congressman Mike Pence has led the way in making this very argument and in living it out in his own political career. No one exemplifies conservative leadership more than Mike Pence does and no one exceeds his articulate abilities. At times, his vigorous displeasure is manifestly apparent. Yet, the raised voices and unpleasantness that characterize a certain aspect of political debate today are never exhibited by the Congressman from Indiana's 6th District.
I can guarantee I'll be writing more about this later, possibly very soon. In the meantime, I am determined to engage in more contemplation about espousing my convictions and philosophy with determination, but with evenness and empathy.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
"Audit the Fed" is dead
When I was at CPAC in February, Congressman Ron Paul announced to the capacity crowd at the Omni Shoreham that he had introduced a bill in the House that would (from my understanding), for the first time ever, audit the books of the Federal Reserve. This came as no shock to any of us who have followed Dr. Paul since his 2007-08 Presidential run. Later developments did induce some surprise, however; not only did many other Congressmen, including my own (Dan Burton) sign on as co-sponsors, but the bill passed the House last month.
That the Federal Reserve exists at all is a testament not only to how far we have strayed from the wishes of the Founding Fathers, but how much control we have ceded to the centralized State. (More on that in a future blog post, which I hope to have up very soon.) That it has never once been audited by either the government or an independent agency and that it operates as much in secret as it does is nothing short of a travesty, unworthy of our heritage.
Ron Paul is a true patriot, exemplified by so many of his stances over the years, among them sounding the alarm on the machinations of the Federal Reserve the whole time. This bill was argued and passed with complete transparency, in contradistinction to the stimulus package and Cap & Trade debates. One other interesting factotum: the text of the bill (HR 1207) runs about a page and a half, as opposed to the gargantuan 1,000+ page affairs that comprised the Porkulus and Cap & Trade debacles. You can read it here.
Well, HR 1207 is DOA in the Senate. Not to say that it will never be resurrected; Ron Paul doesn't give up that easily, but it was awarded a swift demise. Senator Jim DeMint (God bless his valiant heart) did his best and has publicized it to the extent that he could; in fact, he was on Glenn Beck's TV show tonight spreading the word. And I have to take my hat off to Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent, but in reality, a card-carrying Socialist, for co-sponsoring the Senate version with DeMint. I don't know what Sanders' reasons were, nor do I particularly care; we'll take allies where we can when we fight for right. (Someone far wiser than I once said, "He who is not against us is for us", right?)
It would be one thing if Audit the Fed had been sent to the chopping block by the Democrats, but it wasn't. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Richard Shelby, R-Alabama did the dirty work on this, making sure it got blocked on a procedural tactic so they could continue to fight for business as usual in Washington, rather than allow the taxpayers of the United States to see what is being done with the revenue they generate that is force-cycled through Washington.
If this is the best the Republican Party can do, it doesn't deserve to survive and I speak as a Republican. If the default position of the GOP is to advocate secrecy for the Federal Reserve and block attempts to shine delight the Fed's deliberations with arcane parliamentary maneuvers, then we can do better. Career politicians, regardless of party, had better get ready for an accounting on this and other matters.
If I sound mad, then all I can say is, "Great deduction, Sherlock." The Fed exists to regulate (read, manipulate and inflate) the currency and has done a spectacular job of it over the last century. It is a Woodrow Wilson brainchild, created with the intent of obscuring the real meaning of currency and financial assets from the vast majority of the population at large. Chalk another point up for the elite at the expense of the regular folks. And don't tell me that Grassley and Shelby don't know it. If they don't, then they don't belong in the halls of Congress. But they do. And they know the spoils system all too well, which they are determined to protect.
Jim DeMint and the Senate Conservatives' Fund are looking better all the time.
That the Federal Reserve exists at all is a testament not only to how far we have strayed from the wishes of the Founding Fathers, but how much control we have ceded to the centralized State. (More on that in a future blog post, which I hope to have up very soon.) That it has never once been audited by either the government or an independent agency and that it operates as much in secret as it does is nothing short of a travesty, unworthy of our heritage.
Ron Paul is a true patriot, exemplified by so many of his stances over the years, among them sounding the alarm on the machinations of the Federal Reserve the whole time. This bill was argued and passed with complete transparency, in contradistinction to the stimulus package and Cap & Trade debates. One other interesting factotum: the text of the bill (HR 1207) runs about a page and a half, as opposed to the gargantuan 1,000+ page affairs that comprised the Porkulus and Cap & Trade debacles. You can read it here.
Well, HR 1207 is DOA in the Senate. Not to say that it will never be resurrected; Ron Paul doesn't give up that easily, but it was awarded a swift demise. Senator Jim DeMint (God bless his valiant heart) did his best and has publicized it to the extent that he could; in fact, he was on Glenn Beck's TV show tonight spreading the word. And I have to take my hat off to Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders, technically an Independent, but in reality, a card-carrying Socialist, for co-sponsoring the Senate version with DeMint. I don't know what Sanders' reasons were, nor do I particularly care; we'll take allies where we can when we fight for right. (Someone far wiser than I once said, "He who is not against us is for us", right?)
It would be one thing if Audit the Fed had been sent to the chopping block by the Democrats, but it wasn't. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, and Richard Shelby, R-Alabama did the dirty work on this, making sure it got blocked on a procedural tactic so they could continue to fight for business as usual in Washington, rather than allow the taxpayers of the United States to see what is being done with the revenue they generate that is force-cycled through Washington.
If this is the best the Republican Party can do, it doesn't deserve to survive and I speak as a Republican. If the default position of the GOP is to advocate secrecy for the Federal Reserve and block attempts to shine delight the Fed's deliberations with arcane parliamentary maneuvers, then we can do better. Career politicians, regardless of party, had better get ready for an accounting on this and other matters.
If I sound mad, then all I can say is, "Great deduction, Sherlock." The Fed exists to regulate (read, manipulate and inflate) the currency and has done a spectacular job of it over the last century. It is a Woodrow Wilson brainchild, created with the intent of obscuring the real meaning of currency and financial assets from the vast majority of the population at large. Chalk another point up for the elite at the expense of the regular folks. And don't tell me that Grassley and Shelby don't know it. If they don't, then they don't belong in the halls of Congress. But they do. And they know the spoils system all too well, which they are determined to protect.
Jim DeMint and the Senate Conservatives' Fund are looking better all the time.
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Gosh, I'll miss Sarah...or will I?
Wow, Sarah...way to hijack a holiday!!! Anderson Cooper was muttering last night on AC360 that normally, he would be spending July 3 talking about being careful with fireworks and watching out for heavy traffic. Said Anderson, by the way, was as caustic and bitter last night as I have ever seen him. I usually like Anderson Cooper and feel he is about as evenhanded as anyone in the mainstream media, but not in his Palin coverage last night. He was snide and peevish...it was hard to watch. I suspect that he probably wouldn't even have normally been on the air and would have been home with his family, but was called in by the big guns to anchor the news. So sorry, Anderson; it must be tough to get paid heftily (New York Magazine reports his salary as $2 million per year, which I cannot substantiate or deny) and in return, occasionally have to respond to the summons to work a few extra hours to cover late-breaking stories.
OK, now that we have Anderson out of the way...
I don't believe Sarah Palin stepped down to start running for President. She may eventually do just that, but 2012 is too far off for that and if that were her key reason, she could have at least served out her term. In that respect, I don't think her decision to step down will look very wise in hindsight.
But I like Sarah Palin, and I genuinely believe that she simply felt this was the best move for her at this time in her life. Her family has been through a media wringer this last year like no other family in the country. I told my brother (a Palmer, Alaska resident) on the phone yesterday that every time a few weeks went by without any Palin news, inevitably some sort of media hit piece or snarky comment would emerge, bringing her back into the news again. Justifiable or not, this is how American "news" works these days, which is why most of us just gravitate to opinion journalism, since at least we have honest admission there about what we can expect from the commentators. Who wouldn't jump at a chance to move into a role where they could respond to all of these attacks in immediacy without having to worry about governing a state at the same time?
In all candor, I do think Sarah Palin is ambitious. I don't know how far that fact alone will take her, but I know she never dreamed she would attain the status she already has.
Palin is not my candidate for 2012. Mitt Romney possesses the cred we need to get this country away from the economic roller coaster. I believe Palin's values are right on target; social conservatism is her key strength, but we have to focus on keeping the country from sliding into complete ruin across the board and I don't think she is the best one for that role.
We haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin; I have no doubt that in fact, those of us in the lower 48 will see even more of her than we have for the last 6 months. She recently keynoted a Right to Life event in Evansville (in my state) to a sold out crowd; many more of those features await, as well as other opportunities. So I'm sure there are pecuniary advantages here, as well; let us be honest about that, especially since there is nothing wrong about it and it would be a factor for any of us who were in the position of facing the legal costs she is and a future where capitalizing on a built-in "fan base" was a genuine option.
OK, now that we have Anderson out of the way...
I don't believe Sarah Palin stepped down to start running for President. She may eventually do just that, but 2012 is too far off for that and if that were her key reason, she could have at least served out her term. In that respect, I don't think her decision to step down will look very wise in hindsight.
But I like Sarah Palin, and I genuinely believe that she simply felt this was the best move for her at this time in her life. Her family has been through a media wringer this last year like no other family in the country. I told my brother (a Palmer, Alaska resident) on the phone yesterday that every time a few weeks went by without any Palin news, inevitably some sort of media hit piece or snarky comment would emerge, bringing her back into the news again. Justifiable or not, this is how American "news" works these days, which is why most of us just gravitate to opinion journalism, since at least we have honest admission there about what we can expect from the commentators. Who wouldn't jump at a chance to move into a role where they could respond to all of these attacks in immediacy without having to worry about governing a state at the same time?
In all candor, I do think Sarah Palin is ambitious. I don't know how far that fact alone will take her, but I know she never dreamed she would attain the status she already has.
Palin is not my candidate for 2012. Mitt Romney possesses the cred we need to get this country away from the economic roller coaster. I believe Palin's values are right on target; social conservatism is her key strength, but we have to focus on keeping the country from sliding into complete ruin across the board and I don't think she is the best one for that role.
We haven't seen the last of Sarah Palin; I have no doubt that in fact, those of us in the lower 48 will see even more of her than we have for the last 6 months. She recently keynoted a Right to Life event in Evansville (in my state) to a sold out crowd; many more of those features await, as well as other opportunities. So I'm sure there are pecuniary advantages here, as well; let us be honest about that, especially since there is nothing wrong about it and it would be a factor for any of us who were in the position of facing the legal costs she is and a future where capitalizing on a built-in "fan base" was a genuine option.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Sanford's shame, Part II
If we're talking collectively, this would actually be more like Part MM, then Part II. And yes, I know my post title is unoriginal, but what is there to say about Mark Sanford that hasn't already been uttered by someone else?
Perhaps this.
Did anyone really ask Sanford to divulge all that he has so freely confided to us? Perhaps we learn through all this that, at least in some matters, there really should be limits to full disclosure, or at least, admonitions towards self-censorship. Do none of us blush anymore? If Sanford is a reflection of the larger culture, then it seems we really are coming full circle, back to the Europe of old (and probably, of the present) where most high-profile figures had a mistress or two on the side. Some of my more cynical friends would assert that we never have been other than that, but I would beg to differ and cite Washington, Adams and Madison as exhibits. (Yes, I did skip Jefferson, hardly a moral exemplar in this area.)
I wish we could be spared the drama, but I fear we won't be unless Sanford gets off of the public stage completely. Certainly, his newest budget initiative is not high priority on the list of the media that are covering him; they would far rather hear more confessionals about "trying to fall back in love with Jenny" (his beleaguered wife) and his efforts to put the memories of his "soulmate" behind him. Oh and yes, there were other "crossings of lines" with additional women, too. How does a man have a soulmate who isn't the woman he is married to, while becoming too familiar with several others, as well? It all becomes a confusing soap opera, not to mention a disgustingly maudlin one.
Perhaps this.
Did anyone really ask Sanford to divulge all that he has so freely confided to us? Perhaps we learn through all this that, at least in some matters, there really should be limits to full disclosure, or at least, admonitions towards self-censorship. Do none of us blush anymore? If Sanford is a reflection of the larger culture, then it seems we really are coming full circle, back to the Europe of old (and probably, of the present) where most high-profile figures had a mistress or two on the side. Some of my more cynical friends would assert that we never have been other than that, but I would beg to differ and cite Washington, Adams and Madison as exhibits. (Yes, I did skip Jefferson, hardly a moral exemplar in this area.)
I wish we could be spared the drama, but I fear we won't be unless Sanford gets off of the public stage completely. Certainly, his newest budget initiative is not high priority on the list of the media that are covering him; they would far rather hear more confessionals about "trying to fall back in love with Jenny" (his beleaguered wife) and his efforts to put the memories of his "soulmate" behind him. Oh and yes, there were other "crossings of lines" with additional women, too. How does a man have a soulmate who isn't the woman he is married to, while becoming too familiar with several others, as well? It all becomes a confusing soap opera, not to mention a disgustingly maudlin one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
