Well, not all over the network, thank goodness.
But remember my post last October about the Sarah Palin rally? Just as I suspected, Alexandra Pelosi was covering the McCain campaign for a documentary that premiered on HBO on President's Day (last Monday, in case you missed observing the holiday). It is called Right America: Feeling Wronged. I was messaged by a friend a few minutes ago who says that Pam, Maddy and I are in it, at least for a few seconds.
I have not been informed what the slant of the documentary is, but I have a pretty good idea...
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Monday, February 23, 2009
Conservative Political Action Conference 2009
I have had to let this last week, complete with the passage of the stimulus monstrosity, pass me by because CPAC 2009 IS ALMOST HERE!!! As a result, I've had to work ahead in my graduate studies and get all kinds of other things in order so that I can be out of town for 5 days.
I will more than compensate for this by blogging each night of the three days of the conference, this Thursday, Friday and Saturday. We just may have some video clips here as well, since my friend, Jed Hutchison, is accompanying me to the conference, so we'll have opportunities for all sorts of postings. We'll see what works.
If you want to see who the speakers are and what panel sessions will be offered this year, go to www.cpac.org and click on "Agenda."
In the meantime...while driving to the gym on Saturday, I turned on the radio and caught a few minutes of Mike McConnell's weekend show. He was playing this clip from Phil Donahue's interview of Milton Friedman in 1979. This is Free Market Economics 101 explained in a way that is entertaining, but hard-hitting and truthful. I am not tech-savvy enough to post a little video screen below, with an arrow for you to click on, so I'll just post the link here. Enjoy and share with your friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related
I will more than compensate for this by blogging each night of the three days of the conference, this Thursday, Friday and Saturday. We just may have some video clips here as well, since my friend, Jed Hutchison, is accompanying me to the conference, so we'll have opportunities for all sorts of postings. We'll see what works.
If you want to see who the speakers are and what panel sessions will be offered this year, go to www.cpac.org and click on "Agenda."
In the meantime...while driving to the gym on Saturday, I turned on the radio and caught a few minutes of Mike McConnell's weekend show. He was playing this clip from Phil Donahue's interview of Milton Friedman in 1979. This is Free Market Economics 101 explained in a way that is entertaining, but hard-hitting and truthful. I am not tech-savvy enough to post a little video screen below, with an arrow for you to click on, so I'll just post the link here. Enjoy and share with your friends:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWsx1X8PV_A&feature=related
Saturday, February 14, 2009
From Thomas Sowell:
Thomas Sowell is my favorite columnist. I read everything he writes, and own many of his books. Every so often, he writes a column full of what he dubs "Random thoughts on the passing scene." This was one of his gems in the most recent one:
I realized how far behind the times I am when I saw a TV commercial for some weight-loss product, showing Marie Osmond "before" and "after." I thought she looked great "before."
On a more serious note, here is another:
Our economic problems worry me much less than our political solutions, which have a far worse track record.
I'll leave you with one more that is a bit more lengthy:
More frightening to me than any policy or politician is the ease with which the public is played for fools with words. The latest example is the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act," a bill that will do away with secret ballot elections among workers voting on whether to be represented by a union. It is an open invitation to intimidation-- which is to say, loss of freedom of choice.
Thomas Sowell is an economist from the Hoover Institution-Stanford University. If, say, a million more Americans read him on a regular basis, I think this country would be a different and better place...certainly more informed. YOU can find his columns on townhall.com or at his own website, thomassowell.com, where they are archived going back for years.
I realized how far behind the times I am when I saw a TV commercial for some weight-loss product, showing Marie Osmond "before" and "after." I thought she looked great "before."
On a more serious note, here is another:
Our economic problems worry me much less than our political solutions, which have a far worse track record.
I'll leave you with one more that is a bit more lengthy:
More frightening to me than any policy or politician is the ease with which the public is played for fools with words. The latest example is the "Employee Freedom of Choice Act," a bill that will do away with secret ballot elections among workers voting on whether to be represented by a union. It is an open invitation to intimidation-- which is to say, loss of freedom of choice.
Thomas Sowell is an economist from the Hoover Institution-Stanford University. If, say, a million more Americans read him on a regular basis, I think this country would be a different and better place...certainly more informed. YOU can find his columns on townhall.com or at his own website, thomassowell.com, where they are archived going back for years.
Judd Gregg, the stimulus and all the other news
I was reading Bret Baier's blog the other day (Bret replaced Brit Hume around the first of this year on Fox News' "Special Report", for those of you who don't watch). Bret wrote that trying to follow the news in the last few weeks is comparable to drinking from a fire hose. Boy, is he right.
It is a full-time blogger's dream! For someone who enjoys doing it as a hobby and addition to all my other duties, though...I feel overwhelmed just trying to keep up with everything, let alone write about it.
So on Thursday evening, the news broke that Judd Gregg had withdrawn his nomination as Obama's Commerce Secretary due to irresolvable conflicts with the administration. As the news trickled out over the next few hours, it became clear that a key sticking point was the census and the tinkering Obama's people are engaging in with it. It is also abundantly obvious by now that the Obama administration has no intention of learning any lessons from fiscal conservatives. From what I know of Gregg's record, he has not always been immune to the seduction of pork to take home to his district, but he has done pretty well over the years, especially in comparison to some others. What has been done in the past is not the whole point right now, though: the question at hand is or should be, what will really help the country? And it certainly isn't spending ourselves into oblivion with money we don't have, adding trillions of dollars in deficits for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to absorb.
It has been interesting to watch the battle lines get drawn (so quickly) over Obama's first month as President. I don't know that it could be any other way in these times. It is an era that certainly demands action, but it has never been more crucial that the RIGHT action be taken. And a $600 check per person is not something that can work, no matter how assertively the Democrats may declare that it will.
It is a full-time blogger's dream! For someone who enjoys doing it as a hobby and addition to all my other duties, though...I feel overwhelmed just trying to keep up with everything, let alone write about it.
So on Thursday evening, the news broke that Judd Gregg had withdrawn his nomination as Obama's Commerce Secretary due to irresolvable conflicts with the administration. As the news trickled out over the next few hours, it became clear that a key sticking point was the census and the tinkering Obama's people are engaging in with it. It is also abundantly obvious by now that the Obama administration has no intention of learning any lessons from fiscal conservatives. From what I know of Gregg's record, he has not always been immune to the seduction of pork to take home to his district, but he has done pretty well over the years, especially in comparison to some others. What has been done in the past is not the whole point right now, though: the question at hand is or should be, what will really help the country? And it certainly isn't spending ourselves into oblivion with money we don't have, adding trillions of dollars in deficits for our grandchildren and great-grandchildren to absorb.
It has been interesting to watch the battle lines get drawn (so quickly) over Obama's first month as President. I don't know that it could be any other way in these times. It is an era that certainly demands action, but it has never been more crucial that the RIGHT action be taken. And a $600 check per person is not something that can work, no matter how assertively the Democrats may declare that it will.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Daschle's dropout fallout
I was listening to Mark Steyn fill in for Rush yesterday when, in mid-discussion of Daschle's difficulties, Steyn announced the Breaking News that Daschle had withdrawn. I suppose when the New York Times editorializes that you need to withdraw your nomination, it's time to pull the plug; your support, shall we say, is cratering.
Of course, the analysis and the White House spin both commenced immediately. The most interesting few minutes of the day for me, though, were Chris Wallace's interview of Obama later that afternoon, that aired on "Special Report with Bret Baier" last night. Two points:
First, it was clear, even though Obama wouldn't outright admit it (but he did tacitly) that he and Daschle had come to some sort of understanding that Daschle had to withdraw, in spite of the fact that Obama had declared he "absolutely" supported Daschle just the day before. The only way I can explain this is that Obama and Daschle were clearly more friendly than Obama and Bill Richardson, for instance.
Really, what Daschle did or failed to do was not unforgivable in itself, if you ask me. If I ever make the money that Daschle has in the last couple of years, I would be helpless without an accountant and would certainly rely on him heavily! I'm sure Daschle is no different; yet, given that very situation, extra caution is constantly warranted, which Daschle clearly failed to exercise. THAT is what should disqualify him. If he can't be careful enough to manage his own personal finances, he shouldn't be running an entire cabinet agency. Pure and simple.
Back to the Wallace interview. I saw again last night how formidable the PR task of the GOP really is. I agree with Barack Obama on virtually nothing. But, he has such a deft touch and comes across as so likeable that in a media-oriented age, it is very difficult to combat. So different from the choleric Bill Clinton who lashed out at Rush Limbaugh in 1994, saying there was no "truth detector" to help him connect with the people while Rush had 3 unfiltered hours every day. Wallace questioned Obama about Obama's own Limbaugh comment a week or so ago, as well as a tossaway line on Fox News (something about "I can go home later tonight and watch Fox News and feel bad about myself"). Obama chuckled and questioned the wording on the former, but admitted that he had uttered the sentiment about Fox, then went on to say that he probably didn't get his most positive coverage on Fox, but this is the way democracy works, etc., etc. You cannot help but like him when you see him.
I realized last night what makes Obama effective. His media savvy is not contrived. He is a natural. Certainly, he has worked on his public speaking skills over the years, as many of us have and do. But, he has a natural gift for communication and personal relationship that makes him shine in these settings.
It is easy to see why talk radio will be an important asset to the conservative cause in the years ahead, as an unfiltered auditory medium. It is also incumbent on talk radio hosts to be sure to present arguments in context and in truth. And the ones I listen to (mostly Rush and Beck) rarely fail to do both, with a good amount of humor thrown into the mix!
Of course, the analysis and the White House spin both commenced immediately. The most interesting few minutes of the day for me, though, were Chris Wallace's interview of Obama later that afternoon, that aired on "Special Report with Bret Baier" last night. Two points:
First, it was clear, even though Obama wouldn't outright admit it (but he did tacitly) that he and Daschle had come to some sort of understanding that Daschle had to withdraw, in spite of the fact that Obama had declared he "absolutely" supported Daschle just the day before. The only way I can explain this is that Obama and Daschle were clearly more friendly than Obama and Bill Richardson, for instance.
Really, what Daschle did or failed to do was not unforgivable in itself, if you ask me. If I ever make the money that Daschle has in the last couple of years, I would be helpless without an accountant and would certainly rely on him heavily! I'm sure Daschle is no different; yet, given that very situation, extra caution is constantly warranted, which Daschle clearly failed to exercise. THAT is what should disqualify him. If he can't be careful enough to manage his own personal finances, he shouldn't be running an entire cabinet agency. Pure and simple.
Back to the Wallace interview. I saw again last night how formidable the PR task of the GOP really is. I agree with Barack Obama on virtually nothing. But, he has such a deft touch and comes across as so likeable that in a media-oriented age, it is very difficult to combat. So different from the choleric Bill Clinton who lashed out at Rush Limbaugh in 1994, saying there was no "truth detector" to help him connect with the people while Rush had 3 unfiltered hours every day. Wallace questioned Obama about Obama's own Limbaugh comment a week or so ago, as well as a tossaway line on Fox News (something about "I can go home later tonight and watch Fox News and feel bad about myself"). Obama chuckled and questioned the wording on the former, but admitted that he had uttered the sentiment about Fox, then went on to say that he probably didn't get his most positive coverage on Fox, but this is the way democracy works, etc., etc. You cannot help but like him when you see him.
I realized last night what makes Obama effective. His media savvy is not contrived. He is a natural. Certainly, he has worked on his public speaking skills over the years, as many of us have and do. But, he has a natural gift for communication and personal relationship that makes him shine in these settings.
It is easy to see why talk radio will be an important asset to the conservative cause in the years ahead, as an unfiltered auditory medium. It is also incumbent on talk radio hosts to be sure to present arguments in context and in truth. And the ones I listen to (mostly Rush and Beck) rarely fail to do both, with a good amount of humor thrown into the mix!
Monday, February 2, 2009
Holder, Geithner, Daschle...
Are you detecting a pattern here? So much for setting all kinds of new records in ethics.
Tom Daschle not only failed to pay $128,000 in taxes; he also neglected to disclose this quite pertinent fact to Obama's vetting team. Nicely done, Tom. Yet, I suppose, if he falls short of confirmation, the media will still chalk it all up to nasty Republican partisanship. It shouldn't, though; even the Swampland blog (or Twitter page, whichever it is) on Time.com notes that they feel Daschle's failure to inform Obama's people about the back taxes he owed poses a real problem for confirmation. Swampland is about the furthest thing from conservative in tone.
But, Daschle's problems go even further than that. He has also been paid $200,000 within the last year, in his role as an employee of a lobbying firm (though not a registered lobbyist himself), for making speeches to groups that he will now be expected to oversee.
Rush is so right. For so many Democrats, it appears that there really are no rules, only customs. Obama announces that no lobbyists will serve in his administration, then immediately exempts William Lynn and several others who have been longtime lobbyists. For the record, I don't know how you form a Washington team without using someone at some point, if not a goodly number of personnel, who have worked at some point for a lobbying firm. But it was Obama that castigated John McCain and others all through his campaign for using lobbyists. We know now it was just rhetoric, wasn't it?
Tom Daschle not only failed to pay $128,000 in taxes; he also neglected to disclose this quite pertinent fact to Obama's vetting team. Nicely done, Tom. Yet, I suppose, if he falls short of confirmation, the media will still chalk it all up to nasty Republican partisanship. It shouldn't, though; even the Swampland blog (or Twitter page, whichever it is) on Time.com notes that they feel Daschle's failure to inform Obama's people about the back taxes he owed poses a real problem for confirmation. Swampland is about the furthest thing from conservative in tone.
But, Daschle's problems go even further than that. He has also been paid $200,000 within the last year, in his role as an employee of a lobbying firm (though not a registered lobbyist himself), for making speeches to groups that he will now be expected to oversee.
Rush is so right. For so many Democrats, it appears that there really are no rules, only customs. Obama announces that no lobbyists will serve in his administration, then immediately exempts William Lynn and several others who have been longtime lobbyists. For the record, I don't know how you form a Washington team without using someone at some point, if not a goodly number of personnel, who have worked at some point for a lobbying firm. But it was Obama that castigated John McCain and others all through his campaign for using lobbyists. We know now it was just rhetoric, wasn't it?
Thursday, January 29, 2009
A cheer for John Boehner
John Boehner is doing his job well the second week into the Obama administration, as are Mike Pence, Eric Cantor and other leaders and mouthpieces within the Republican congressional minority. Not a single Republican voted for the monstrosity of a stimulus package! Every one courageously stood firm, and 12 Democrats crossed the aisle to vote with them.
I sent my Congressman (Dan Burton, from Indiana's 5th District) an e-mail yesterday morning, with wording to the effect that I never even have to worry about him. I know I can count on him to do the right thing on fiscal policy. I was not disappointed, once again. Find out who your Congressman is and send them a note, either congratulatory or scathing, depending on their vote!
The Republicans have found a backbone and are sending a message. I remember being so chagrined back in September when, on "This Week" with George Stephanopolous, John Boehner pronounced that there was no choice but to opt for a massive stimulus package because the economic predictions were so dire...like nothing he had ever heard. He has clearly reversed course, and good for him! The sooner the better. It has become painfully obvious that very few congressional representatives have much knowledge of economics (or Senators either, for that matter). So I suppose a brief period of misjudgment can be forgiven, though the fallout for the country as a result of that ignorance could be and indeed, has been disastrous. (See results of November 4, 2008 election!)
The stimulus package will pass because I doubt the Senate will filibuster it. But the hands of all House Republicans will be clean, as well as those of most GOP Senators. (If John McCain won't vote for the stimulus package, maybe Lindsey Graham won't either.) And that is important, not just with the next election in mind, but also for the history books.
I sent my Congressman (Dan Burton, from Indiana's 5th District) an e-mail yesterday morning, with wording to the effect that I never even have to worry about him. I know I can count on him to do the right thing on fiscal policy. I was not disappointed, once again. Find out who your Congressman is and send them a note, either congratulatory or scathing, depending on their vote!
The Republicans have found a backbone and are sending a message. I remember being so chagrined back in September when, on "This Week" with George Stephanopolous, John Boehner pronounced that there was no choice but to opt for a massive stimulus package because the economic predictions were so dire...like nothing he had ever heard. He has clearly reversed course, and good for him! The sooner the better. It has become painfully obvious that very few congressional representatives have much knowledge of economics (or Senators either, for that matter). So I suppose a brief period of misjudgment can be forgiven, though the fallout for the country as a result of that ignorance could be and indeed, has been disastrous. (See results of November 4, 2008 election!)
The stimulus package will pass because I doubt the Senate will filibuster it. But the hands of all House Republicans will be clean, as well as those of most GOP Senators. (If John McCain won't vote for the stimulus package, maybe Lindsey Graham won't either.) And that is important, not just with the next election in mind, but also for the history books.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
