I'm very seriously contemplating a letter to Al Gore at this moment, asking for his advice on what products available to consumers are the worst emitters of greenhouse gases . . . so I can go buy them. Seriously, we are seeing places in the U.S. hitting lows not seen since the 1930's (maybe the weather is also getting nostalgic for FDR and the New Deal!). Seriously, I think we can kill two birds with one stone here - why don't we provide vouchers to people to go buy more SUV's to pump more carbon into the atmosphere. In doing that, we will get global warming back on track from its decade vacation, thus restoring some credibility to the climate change lobby and validating Al Gore's Nobel "Peace" prize, and we can also make our beloved American automakers solvent again. Win-win.
Seems like the only area in the nation currently experiencing warming is Washington, D.C., where the extensive hot air emanating from committee chambers - where supposed "confirmation hearings" - are being held, should warm the cold hearts of our elected betters - I mean leaders. It is amusing to watch Democrats pretend to be giving tough hearings to these nominees. Today it is Eric Holder. He wants to be the Attorney General. There is much talk about how this office should be an independent body, not subject to political machinations. Keep in mind that this is the same Eric Holder who, while the number 2 at the Justice Department during the closing days of the Clinton administration - helped to push through the pardons of Marc Rich and the FALN terrorists. The FALN terrorist pardon, as is widely believed, helped to secure Puerto Rican votes in New York for Hillary Clinton's Senate election. The Marc Rich pardon followed closely on the heels of a very sizable donation from Rich's wife to President Clinton. Both pardons were a huge shock to pretty much everybody - completely sidestepping the usual practice of conferring with other justice department officials over pardons. This guy practically has "political hack" tattooed across his forehead.
Soon we will also have hearings regarding Geithner for Treasury Secretary. I discussed him in my last post. Surprisingly little is made of his delinquency in paying taxes for 4 years of income. Many explain it away as an honest mistake. Excuse me? Nearly $40,000 over 4 years? An honest mistake? No, an honest mistake is not knowing whether a particular purchase is qualified as an exemption. An honest mistake is forgetting to attach your W2 to your 1040. Forgetting that the U.S. government taxes the income of its citizens making over a certain amount of money each year? That is hardly a mistake. This guy has a large enough income to hire illegals to clean his house - I doubt there was any confusion as to whether he made enough money to have to pay taxes. I also seriously doubt that 2001 was the first year he made enough to pay taxes, so it would not have been a new thing for him. Surely his accountant brought it to his attention that he needed to write a big check in April. Give me a break. And this guy should be put in charge of the Treasury and the IRS? Isn't this what they nabbed Capone for? Where is Elliot Ness when you need him? Oh yeah, this guy would be his boss!
One more bit of hypocrisy for the day. Think back to 2005, and the second Bush inauguration. The price tag for that event was in the $40-50 million range - lower than that of his predecessor, Bill Clinton. Yet, at the time, reporters, particularly from Reuters and the AP, were heavy with their criticism of the high price tag. How much armor for Humvees could that money buy? How many homeless could be housed? How many uninsured could receive healthcare? On and on. How could the president spend that much money at a time of war? Fast forward to today - the current price tag for the Obama coronation is estimate at around $150 million, or 3 times that of the 2005 event. Obama has increased the maximum donation by almost double that which was allowed by Bush (up to $500,000). A state of emergency is being declared for the D.C. area for this thing - the city is being shut down. Fighting is still going on in the Middle East - I can only assume Humvees can still use some more armor. Obama continue to talk about the dire situation that our economy faces - the worst since the Great Depression! What do the media say? We need to have a world class celebration! It is a time for rejoicing! Let them eat cake!
Seriously, how quickly would Obama be sainted were he to come out and say that, in light of the financial crisis facing our nation, and the huge burden he is seeking to add to our national debt, he will forego the spectacle of the inauguration and instead use the $150 million for something actually useful - buying healthcare for uninsured children, paying for infrastructure he wants to update, bail out imperiled homeowners from mortgages they can't pay off, shore up failing financial institutions! Seriously, $150 million would provide almost 5 times the amount of the last chunk of money Citigroup got in this bailout - which has resulted in them on the verge of collapsing with shares trading at $4, down from $54 not too long ago. Were he to do that, the combined Democratic party would trudge through the hell-freezing-over temperatures to the Dakotas and collectively remake Mt. Rushmore with only one likeness - the Chosen One, His Holiness, Saint Barack Obama, the healer of planets and savior of nations.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
On the Transition
Recently, while working out at my local YMCA, I was reading the captions on the TV in front of me, which was tuned to CNN. Not my usual choice for news, but my options were non-existent. The commentators were discussing the recent meeting between President Bush, Senator Obama (I've chosen to follow the lead of my Democratic counterparts in 2001, and not call him President-elect), and a few other living presidents. What they found so refreshing was what they referred to as the era of "nice." It was so nice, how gentlemanly Pres. Bush was treating Obama, graciously hosting, even acting as Obama's chief-of-staff in getting the next $350 billion in TARP money to put in Obama's petty cash box. Imagine that, Bush acting nice. I realize that is a novel concept for those on the left who have spent most (if not all) of the last 8 years portraying Bush as anything from an incompetent spoiled rich kid, to a bloodthirsty tyrant in the mold of Adolf Hitler. It must also be novel to them, given the picture we had during the last transition in 2001. At that time, President Clinton was too busy signing a slew of last minute pardons for unrepentant terrorists, convicted profiteers who did business with Iran, and whoever else Hugh Rodham lined up, to notice his staff prying all of the W's off of computer keyboards like a bunch of high school pranksters. Perhaps he couldn't trouble himself with such details while trying to determine which items in the White House he would abscond with.
At any rate, now the liberal media seems quite shocked that Bush is, well, nice. Of course, one individual felt the need to suggest that Obama should not be too nice, as now it is time for him to start the investigations, and that he should be downright mean in punishing anybody from the outgoing Bush administration that they can possibly subpoena. Good to know civility is not dead. Ignore the fact that Bush chose to overlook a myriad of issues with the Clinton administration in their final days. Democrats don't need to be nice.
More entertainment with Obama appointments. His pick for Treasury Secretary (you know, the person who oversees the IRS), Timothy Geithner, seems to have problems with filing taxes. That's right - the potential new taxmaster for all of us can't seem to pay his taxes on time. In 2006, he was audited for tax years 2003 and 2004, and ended up having to pay over $16,000 in back taxes and penalties. Then, AFTER Obama picked him as his Treasury Secretary, he "amended" his 2001 and 2002 returns, paying nearly $26,000 more. The man who will make sure you and I are paying our taxes can't seem to do it properly himself. That's comforting. Will we be given similar grace periods, should we be 7 years delinquent? Nevermind the fact that he also had a housekeeper working for him who had an expired work visa - why is it Democrats have the hardest time with that? And I thought it was the GOP that was the party of the rich elite - why is it that we are always hearing about these housekeepers for Democrats? Honestly, how many does he have on staff, that he can't keep track of things? I'm sure he is in touch with the middle class.
Poor John Kerry - he just can't catch a break. In opening statements for Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing as Secretary of State, he had to make a point about how dire a situation global warming is. He has about as good of timing on this issue as does Al Gore. The nation was being rocked with frigid temperatures, actual global warming is entering the 10th year of its hiatus, and arctic sea ice has swelled to levels not seen in 3 decades. Does he even pretend to know what he is talking about? He'd better watch out - any more of this global warming, and he might not be able to do any windsurfing out there at Martha's Vineyard.
It looks like the Keynesiacs that are in charge of running our country are drooling at the mouth to drive us further into debt. How many companies have we now bailed out, and how much money has been shoveled in to the economy? What do we have to show for it? And the only answer seems to be, "Well, let's toss in the other $350 billion, then add close to $1 trillion more." It amazes me how many people hear the same tune from Democrats (and, sadly, so many misguided Republicans), and think it is the new hit tune. More money, more money, more money. Democrats have no other answer to solving problems. Kids are failing in schools? Give schools/teachers more money. Not enough people have health insurance? Pour more money in. Social Security is failing? More money. Not enough people have houses? More money. That is their only answer. That and more talks. Talking and shoveling money onto something - that is the sum total of their playbook. Sometimes the two go hand in hand. Consider how the Clinton administration handled North Korea - more talks, and more money, in the form of grain shipments and nuclear reactors. What was the result? Nuclear weapons being tested in North Korea.
The next great new idea for Democrats, as represented by Obama, is to use a failed idea from over 70 years ago to solve our current financial problems. Obama wants a new New Deal. If its all the same, I'd rather not. Remember, the New Deal didn't actually get us out of the Great Depression. In fact, increased spending on infrastructure, as well as isolationism in the form of increased tariffs (similar to Obama's rhetoric) almost certainly drove the depression to be bigger than it needed to be. The New Deal programs, then, served to prolong it. Although it isn't discussed much, there was actually a further recession within the Great Depression, several years into the FDR administration. His New Deal programs were actually discouraging economic recovery by funneling money into government projects that were inefficient and punitive to private companies. It took over a decade to recover - how exactly were those programs effective? One needs only look at the TVA. The areas immediately around TVA controlled areas actually saw a greater increase in prosperity than those supposedly benefited by the TVA. To this day, the TVA is still a money-losing venture. Were it not for the fact that they enjoy greater liberties than any private utilities company is afforded, they would have been driven out of existence long ago.
Wonderful things on the horizon. I just can't wait to see how the next year will unfold.
At any rate, now the liberal media seems quite shocked that Bush is, well, nice. Of course, one individual felt the need to suggest that Obama should not be too nice, as now it is time for him to start the investigations, and that he should be downright mean in punishing anybody from the outgoing Bush administration that they can possibly subpoena. Good to know civility is not dead. Ignore the fact that Bush chose to overlook a myriad of issues with the Clinton administration in their final days. Democrats don't need to be nice.
More entertainment with Obama appointments. His pick for Treasury Secretary (you know, the person who oversees the IRS), Timothy Geithner, seems to have problems with filing taxes. That's right - the potential new taxmaster for all of us can't seem to pay his taxes on time. In 2006, he was audited for tax years 2003 and 2004, and ended up having to pay over $16,000 in back taxes and penalties. Then, AFTER Obama picked him as his Treasury Secretary, he "amended" his 2001 and 2002 returns, paying nearly $26,000 more. The man who will make sure you and I are paying our taxes can't seem to do it properly himself. That's comforting. Will we be given similar grace periods, should we be 7 years delinquent? Nevermind the fact that he also had a housekeeper working for him who had an expired work visa - why is it Democrats have the hardest time with that? And I thought it was the GOP that was the party of the rich elite - why is it that we are always hearing about these housekeepers for Democrats? Honestly, how many does he have on staff, that he can't keep track of things? I'm sure he is in touch with the middle class.
Poor John Kerry - he just can't catch a break. In opening statements for Hillary Clinton's confirmation hearing as Secretary of State, he had to make a point about how dire a situation global warming is. He has about as good of timing on this issue as does Al Gore. The nation was being rocked with frigid temperatures, actual global warming is entering the 10th year of its hiatus, and arctic sea ice has swelled to levels not seen in 3 decades. Does he even pretend to know what he is talking about? He'd better watch out - any more of this global warming, and he might not be able to do any windsurfing out there at Martha's Vineyard.
It looks like the Keynesiacs that are in charge of running our country are drooling at the mouth to drive us further into debt. How many companies have we now bailed out, and how much money has been shoveled in to the economy? What do we have to show for it? And the only answer seems to be, "Well, let's toss in the other $350 billion, then add close to $1 trillion more." It amazes me how many people hear the same tune from Democrats (and, sadly, so many misguided Republicans), and think it is the new hit tune. More money, more money, more money. Democrats have no other answer to solving problems. Kids are failing in schools? Give schools/teachers more money. Not enough people have health insurance? Pour more money in. Social Security is failing? More money. Not enough people have houses? More money. That is their only answer. That and more talks. Talking and shoveling money onto something - that is the sum total of their playbook. Sometimes the two go hand in hand. Consider how the Clinton administration handled North Korea - more talks, and more money, in the form of grain shipments and nuclear reactors. What was the result? Nuclear weapons being tested in North Korea.
The next great new idea for Democrats, as represented by Obama, is to use a failed idea from over 70 years ago to solve our current financial problems. Obama wants a new New Deal. If its all the same, I'd rather not. Remember, the New Deal didn't actually get us out of the Great Depression. In fact, increased spending on infrastructure, as well as isolationism in the form of increased tariffs (similar to Obama's rhetoric) almost certainly drove the depression to be bigger than it needed to be. The New Deal programs, then, served to prolong it. Although it isn't discussed much, there was actually a further recession within the Great Depression, several years into the FDR administration. His New Deal programs were actually discouraging economic recovery by funneling money into government projects that were inefficient and punitive to private companies. It took over a decade to recover - how exactly were those programs effective? One needs only look at the TVA. The areas immediately around TVA controlled areas actually saw a greater increase in prosperity than those supposedly benefited by the TVA. To this day, the TVA is still a money-losing venture. Were it not for the fact that they enjoy greater liberties than any private utilities company is afforded, they would have been driven out of existence long ago.
Wonderful things on the horizon. I just can't wait to see how the next year will unfold.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Life in the Opposition
Well, I can't say that I am happy to once again be in the minority, but as was learned back in '92, it definitely has its advantages. For one, playing offense is so much more enjoyable than playing defense. However, it seems the Democrats are trying to steal all of our thunder. What do I mean? Let's consider the following:
Illinois. Illinois politics is kind of like the Sopranos. Lots of corruption. Lots of foul language. Lots of shady dealings. But one heck of an entertaining show. And that is just referring to the Blago scandal. You have to empathize with the guy - but just a little bit. I mean, honestly, trying to sell Obama's senate seat could not be an original invention of this guy. Consider the on-his-way-out individual appointed by the Massachusetts governor to fill the vacated seat of then recently-elected JFK, thus making it extremely easy for brother Ted to run in the next election for that seat. Coincidence? Only a political Pollyanna believes in coincidences when it comes to politics (and Kennedys). Blago also gives us high entertainment in, once again, forcing Democrats to play defense on the race issue. These guys really don't know what to do with themselves. Usually it is the GOP that has these issues leveled at them. Dems don't know what to do when the gun is turned on them. Cases in point - Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Geraldine Ferraro having the race card played against them.
Obama. Not even coronated . . . I mean inaugurated yet, and already a cloud over his head. Most presidents don't have to perform internal investigations of their staffers until after they hang the new drapes in the Oval Office. Already Obama has had to conduct one regarding whether anything untoward occurred, from his end, regarding the Blago scandal (and wasn't it amazing how his own people found that they had done nothing improper?). Rahm Emmanuel was up to his neck in it. Now Bill Richardson is having to withdraw his name for consideration for Commerce Secretary, because, come to find out, he might be under investigation for corruption in some shady pay-to-play deals in New Mexico. Never mind that the investigation was under way before he was named for the position. Turns out that a contract was awarded to a company that did not offer the best bid, and, coincidentally, the deal went through not too long after that company had made a sizable contribution to Richardson's election coffers. Concerning coincidences in politics, please see the preceding paragraph.
Now Obama has picked Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Didn't even run that one by Dianne Feinstein, the incoming Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. Surely you all are aware of his extensive credentials for running the top intelligence position in the country at a time when we are engaged in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when Gaza and Israel are locked in combat, when Iran threatens to develop nuclear weapons, when Russia haphazardly runs roughshod over former Soviet republics and threatens budding democracies in Eastern Europe. Oh, wait, he has none. Well, that certainly shows Obama's intellect and wisdom. While he is at it, maybe he can quickly, after he is inaugurated, pardon ponzi schemer-extraordinaire, and former Democrat and liberal fundraiser, Berny Madoff so he can name him to be the next Treasury Secretary. That is, of course, unless he chooses to pardon first his erstwhile real estate sugar daddy, Tony Rezko, and give him that position. Perhaps he could, at the same time, appoint Bill Ayers to some worthy position - say Homeland Security?
You see, he really could do all of the above. Honestly, nobody in the dinosaur media is going to call him on it. Sure, the Code Pinkers are going to be upset that he has not yet condemned Israel for retaliating against Hamas, which has been firing rockets into Israel, and still hold Gilad Shalit, without even access to Internation Red Cross observers. Where is the outrage over those violations of Geneva Conventions?
Apparently, though, Obama's powers are already showing effect, and he hasn't even taken possession of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As I type, the rise of global temperatures, spurred on by our excessive and willful pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, is in the 10th year of its hiatus. Arctic sea ice has rebounded to levels not seen in nearly 3 decades. For crying out loud, they had to pull out the snow shovels recently in Las Vegas, as hell, literally, froze over. Its amazing. And Obama did all of that just while playing in Hawaii! Imagine the paradisiacal glory this planet will achieve once he actually enters his kingdom - scratch that, I mean, takes the oath of office!
Illinois. Illinois politics is kind of like the Sopranos. Lots of corruption. Lots of foul language. Lots of shady dealings. But one heck of an entertaining show. And that is just referring to the Blago scandal. You have to empathize with the guy - but just a little bit. I mean, honestly, trying to sell Obama's senate seat could not be an original invention of this guy. Consider the on-his-way-out individual appointed by the Massachusetts governor to fill the vacated seat of then recently-elected JFK, thus making it extremely easy for brother Ted to run in the next election for that seat. Coincidence? Only a political Pollyanna believes in coincidences when it comes to politics (and Kennedys). Blago also gives us high entertainment in, once again, forcing Democrats to play defense on the race issue. These guys really don't know what to do with themselves. Usually it is the GOP that has these issues leveled at them. Dems don't know what to do when the gun is turned on them. Cases in point - Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Geraldine Ferraro having the race card played against them.
Obama. Not even coronated . . . I mean inaugurated yet, and already a cloud over his head. Most presidents don't have to perform internal investigations of their staffers until after they hang the new drapes in the Oval Office. Already Obama has had to conduct one regarding whether anything untoward occurred, from his end, regarding the Blago scandal (and wasn't it amazing how his own people found that they had done nothing improper?). Rahm Emmanuel was up to his neck in it. Now Bill Richardson is having to withdraw his name for consideration for Commerce Secretary, because, come to find out, he might be under investigation for corruption in some shady pay-to-play deals in New Mexico. Never mind that the investigation was under way before he was named for the position. Turns out that a contract was awarded to a company that did not offer the best bid, and, coincidentally, the deal went through not too long after that company had made a sizable contribution to Richardson's election coffers. Concerning coincidences in politics, please see the preceding paragraph.
Now Obama has picked Leon Panetta to head the CIA. Didn't even run that one by Dianne Feinstein, the incoming Senate Intelligence Committee Chair. Surely you all are aware of his extensive credentials for running the top intelligence position in the country at a time when we are engaged in combat in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when Gaza and Israel are locked in combat, when Iran threatens to develop nuclear weapons, when Russia haphazardly runs roughshod over former Soviet republics and threatens budding democracies in Eastern Europe. Oh, wait, he has none. Well, that certainly shows Obama's intellect and wisdom. While he is at it, maybe he can quickly, after he is inaugurated, pardon ponzi schemer-extraordinaire, and former Democrat and liberal fundraiser, Berny Madoff so he can name him to be the next Treasury Secretary. That is, of course, unless he chooses to pardon first his erstwhile real estate sugar daddy, Tony Rezko, and give him that position. Perhaps he could, at the same time, appoint Bill Ayers to some worthy position - say Homeland Security?
You see, he really could do all of the above. Honestly, nobody in the dinosaur media is going to call him on it. Sure, the Code Pinkers are going to be upset that he has not yet condemned Israel for retaliating against Hamas, which has been firing rockets into Israel, and still hold Gilad Shalit, without even access to Internation Red Cross observers. Where is the outrage over those violations of Geneva Conventions?
Apparently, though, Obama's powers are already showing effect, and he hasn't even taken possession of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. As I type, the rise of global temperatures, spurred on by our excessive and willful pumping of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, is in the 10th year of its hiatus. Arctic sea ice has rebounded to levels not seen in nearly 3 decades. For crying out loud, they had to pull out the snow shovels recently in Las Vegas, as hell, literally, froze over. Its amazing. And Obama did all of that just while playing in Hawaii! Imagine the paradisiacal glory this planet will achieve once he actually enters his kingdom - scratch that, I mean, takes the oath of office!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Where Is My Bailout?
So it seems now that the government is going to prop up every failed business that comes hat in hand. Apparently you can make an inferior, crappy product, but still get my tax dollars to prop you up, so long as you are "too big to fail." I love this line of reasoning. Because a company is big enough, we need to ensure that it stays afloat peddling garbage. Squandered money loaning it to people that couldn't afford it? No problem, we'll keep you going. Building crappy cars that chug gas faster than frat boys chugging beer at a kegger, all when gas prices are skyrocketing? Hey, you are an American institution! And besides, those are good union jobs we need to protect!
So many people are heralding the collapse of free-market capitalism in all of this. But how can it be, when this isn't really a free market we are seeing collapse? The American auto industry has been bogged down by so many things for so long - the strangulation of unions, the incessant regulation of standards by the government, their inability to stick a finger in the wind and discern that now is the time for fuel efficiency. So the government's answer is to bail them out. Why is it that we think it is a good thing to prop up a failed enterprise? I know, people will lose jobs. But that is not the job of the government to control. You lose one job, you go look for another. There is no right guaranteed by any of our founding documents to the job of your choosing for the rest of your natural life, including retirement and healthcare benefits. We are guaranteed the right of the pursuit of happiness, not a guaranteed happiness.
I suppose it is to be expected, though. Consider that this is the modus operandi of the modern liberal mindset - especially since FDR and the New Deal, and LBJ and the Great Society. So ingrained is it now in society, that even supposed "conservative" Republicans support massive government bailouts. The mindset is this idea that the way to solve any problem is to throw more money, preferably government money (after all, it just grows on trees, or flows freely from the pockets of the greedy rich) at it. Call it Keynes on steroids. Public education failing? Well, give it some more money. Companies failing because they gave mortgages to people with no income? Bail them out. We couldn't think of holding anybody responsible! American car companies making crap that doesn't sell and strangled by unions? Quick! Somebody write them a check! Can't get enough people to vote Democratic to win the presidency? Promise "tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't pay taxes in the first place!
It is not bad for bad companies to fail. The world doesn't end. Ever wonder why you don't see many stagecoach manufacturers anymore? They made a product that nobody wanted to buy anymore, so they ceased to exist. Notice the railroad sleeper car industry is also not what it used to be? Or how ocean liner-as mode of transpotation is practically non-existent? When people no longer want your product, or you just aren't doing a good job anymore, you probably need to say your fairwells. Why should my tax dollars pay for something we don't want anymore?
It is telling that so many people think that government should step in and meet every need out there. Can't get a job? Government will take care of that. Can't pay for medical insurance? No problem, we'll get right to work on that. Bought more house than you can afford? Don't worry, we'll get those greedy rich people to pay your mortgage. Besides, you were probably deceived when you got the mortgage in the first place. They should have known that you wouldn't necessarily understand that you needed to have an income to afford a mortgage.
All the while, numerous people go about their lives they way they should. When the bills come, they pay them. When they want a house, they save for it. When their job doesn't pay enough to support their family, they look for another job. If their company is going under, they start looking to relocate. What happens to these people under these circumstances? They get screwed. They pay double. Not only are they caring for themselves, but their tax dollars are also going to prop up those who don't want to actually have to work for what they want. These are the people who, when they realize they need medical insurance, they get a job that provides it, rather than complain that nobody is giving it to them.
The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 10% of the total tax revenues. And yet they believe they are being screwed over when wealthy people see tax cuts. Basic mathematics seem to fail them. They can't see that if you cut taxes by, say, 10%, then in terms of absolute dollars, of course the guy paying $10,000 is going to keep more money than the guy paying $10. Along come politicians that tell them that they deserved that $1,000 in tax cuts - even though they were only paying $10 in the first place, and the rich person, still paying $9,000, is screwing them over.
But in doing this, crafty politicians, like our newest president-elect, ensure their future victories. When they promise handouts to more than 50% of the people, they guarantee their establishment in power. The only hope for their downfall, then, is the economic disaster that inevitably follows such policies. Confiscatory taxation that punishes the productive members of the society to prop up the unproductive is self-limiting. Eventually the goose stops laying golden eggs - either it dies, or it moves to another country that is cheaper to work in.
So congratulations! It looks like we, the taxpayers, now own investment banks, AIG, and pretty soon, we will also own the "big" 3 automakers. Who wouldn't be excited? We just bought some pretty massive failing companies! While we're at it, is it too late to buy the American Motors Corporation and bring back the Pacer and the Gremlin? And hey, is DeLorean for sale? For that matter, I don't think it is too late to pay top dollar for the rights to keep producing the Betamax player, or the Laser Disc, or 8-track players? I think I've got some K.C. and The Sunshine Band 8-tracks!
So many people are heralding the collapse of free-market capitalism in all of this. But how can it be, when this isn't really a free market we are seeing collapse? The American auto industry has been bogged down by so many things for so long - the strangulation of unions, the incessant regulation of standards by the government, their inability to stick a finger in the wind and discern that now is the time for fuel efficiency. So the government's answer is to bail them out. Why is it that we think it is a good thing to prop up a failed enterprise? I know, people will lose jobs. But that is not the job of the government to control. You lose one job, you go look for another. There is no right guaranteed by any of our founding documents to the job of your choosing for the rest of your natural life, including retirement and healthcare benefits. We are guaranteed the right of the pursuit of happiness, not a guaranteed happiness.
I suppose it is to be expected, though. Consider that this is the modus operandi of the modern liberal mindset - especially since FDR and the New Deal, and LBJ and the Great Society. So ingrained is it now in society, that even supposed "conservative" Republicans support massive government bailouts. The mindset is this idea that the way to solve any problem is to throw more money, preferably government money (after all, it just grows on trees, or flows freely from the pockets of the greedy rich) at it. Call it Keynes on steroids. Public education failing? Well, give it some more money. Companies failing because they gave mortgages to people with no income? Bail them out. We couldn't think of holding anybody responsible! American car companies making crap that doesn't sell and strangled by unions? Quick! Somebody write them a check! Can't get enough people to vote Democratic to win the presidency? Promise "tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't pay taxes in the first place!
It is not bad for bad companies to fail. The world doesn't end. Ever wonder why you don't see many stagecoach manufacturers anymore? They made a product that nobody wanted to buy anymore, so they ceased to exist. Notice the railroad sleeper car industry is also not what it used to be? Or how ocean liner-as mode of transpotation is practically non-existent? When people no longer want your product, or you just aren't doing a good job anymore, you probably need to say your fairwells. Why should my tax dollars pay for something we don't want anymore?
It is telling that so many people think that government should step in and meet every need out there. Can't get a job? Government will take care of that. Can't pay for medical insurance? No problem, we'll get right to work on that. Bought more house than you can afford? Don't worry, we'll get those greedy rich people to pay your mortgage. Besides, you were probably deceived when you got the mortgage in the first place. They should have known that you wouldn't necessarily understand that you needed to have an income to afford a mortgage.
All the while, numerous people go about their lives they way they should. When the bills come, they pay them. When they want a house, they save for it. When their job doesn't pay enough to support their family, they look for another job. If their company is going under, they start looking to relocate. What happens to these people under these circumstances? They get screwed. They pay double. Not only are they caring for themselves, but their tax dollars are also going to prop up those who don't want to actually have to work for what they want. These are the people who, when they realize they need medical insurance, they get a job that provides it, rather than complain that nobody is giving it to them.
The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 10% of the total tax revenues. And yet they believe they are being screwed over when wealthy people see tax cuts. Basic mathematics seem to fail them. They can't see that if you cut taxes by, say, 10%, then in terms of absolute dollars, of course the guy paying $10,000 is going to keep more money than the guy paying $10. Along come politicians that tell them that they deserved that $1,000 in tax cuts - even though they were only paying $10 in the first place, and the rich person, still paying $9,000, is screwing them over.
But in doing this, crafty politicians, like our newest president-elect, ensure their future victories. When they promise handouts to more than 50% of the people, they guarantee their establishment in power. The only hope for their downfall, then, is the economic disaster that inevitably follows such policies. Confiscatory taxation that punishes the productive members of the society to prop up the unproductive is self-limiting. Eventually the goose stops laying golden eggs - either it dies, or it moves to another country that is cheaper to work in.
So congratulations! It looks like we, the taxpayers, now own investment banks, AIG, and pretty soon, we will also own the "big" 3 automakers. Who wouldn't be excited? We just bought some pretty massive failing companies! While we're at it, is it too late to buy the American Motors Corporation and bring back the Pacer and the Gremlin? And hey, is DeLorean for sale? For that matter, I don't think it is too late to pay top dollar for the rights to keep producing the Betamax player, or the Laser Disc, or 8-track players? I think I've got some K.C. and The Sunshine Band 8-tracks!
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
In spite of my earlier griping, I actually did go and vote for McCain. Never say never, I guess. It didn't matter. McCain, to my mind, was almost as weak a candidate as Dole in '96. We knew this would be a hard election. It is always hard for the incumbent party to win a third term. Bush had low ratings. Iraq is unpopular. We needed someone strong. McCain wasn't it. Never was. All the talk of him being a good closer was always BS. Where was that good closing in 2000? Has he had some nailbiters in recent elections in Arizona that I'm unaware of that he came from behind to win? He didn't close well on his immigration bill (thank goodness). The guy pulled less punches fighting his own party than he did with Obama.
Obama won. He is to be congratulated. He won with the largest margin of any Democrat since Johnson. He outperformed Clinton (both times) and Carter (not necessarily a high bar to overcome, but, still). Now let us see if it really all was jut hot air regarding how an Obama presidency would finally transcend race in this country. Can we now do away with quotas and affirmative action and race-based admissions? Do we really need them when a black man can win the presidency with a commanding majority, and not just a plurality?
I sincerely pray that my fears of an Obama presidency won't come true, but I worry that is too much to hope for. He has the White House, and Dems have even stronger majorities in both houses of Congress - better than the Republicans had. Not filibuster-proof, but on the right issues, it just might, given that there are still some very fickle GOP senators in there, who I place as much faith in regarding their stalwart GOP-loyalty as I do in my 3-year old obeying me - I am happy when it happens, but nor surprised when it doesn't.
Dems now have what they wished for - the legislative and executive branches. If predictions are true, they should also be able to solidify a Roe-worshipping panel in the judiciary to ensure that this travesty of a decision is never given any serious threat. Obama campaigned in the primaries as very liberal. In the general, he tacked more to the center. It is hard to say exactly which was more accurate - because we know so little about him. What little we do know makes his centrist statements ring hollow. We know that in his very limited career as a U.S. Senator, he voted more liberal than anybody else in the Senate. We know he amassed a liberal voting record, when not voting present, in the Illinois senate. We know he has made some very liberal statements in interviews in the past. We know he has associated with some extremely radical people in his life - Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Khalidi. We know he has also associated with some criminal figures - Rezko. Do I think he espouses their most vicious beliefs? No. Do I think he has some common ground with them? Yes. And that is what scares me. I don't think he wants to bomb government buildings, like Ayers did. But does he agree with Ayers' radical views on education? And will that be reflected in his appointments in education positions? I don't think he supports the terrorist actions of the PLO. But will he share an antipathy towards Israel, our only staunch and reliable ally in the Middle East? And if I don't believe that he has the same hateful feelings towards American and its government that Wright has, I also believe he won't stand up to those who do, so long as having their support is politically advantageous.
I fear that Obama and Reid and Pelosi will take this opportunity to pass a myriad of leftist legislative pieces that they have been dying to pass for some time now. Card check. Freedom of Choice. Fairness Doctrine. "Tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't even pay taxes in the first place. He said that he will cut the taxes on 95% of Americans, that he will only raise taxes on the top 5%, those making $250,000/year and above. But the IRS numbers don't match. According to the IRS, the threshold for the top 5% of earners is $153,542. Maybe that is why the number that Joe Biden was saying was $150,000, not $250,000. Or why Bill Richardson put the line at $120,000. The top 5%, people earning $153,542 and above, already pay 60% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay 2.99%. The threshold for the bottom 50% is <$32,000. So half the people pay only 3% of taxes. How are they being punished by "tax cuts to the rich?" Democrats would do well to remember the lesson the DNC learned in 1994, and the one learned by the GOP in 2006. Overreaching is a temptation, and it is often very costly in midterm elections. I believe, though, that the temptation will be too great, and the hunger too strong, and we will see some very aggressive, very liberal action quickly, while a whipped GOP mistakenly views yesterday as a message to get out of the way.
This was not a historic election based on voter turnout. 3 million fewer votes were cast in this election than in 2004. There was a 9 million vote swing between 2004 and 2008, because Obama pulled in 3 million more votes than Kerry did, and did it brilliantly in some key states, while McCain pulled in 6 million fewer votes than Bush did. McCain was not the man to win this election.
And for the GOP? Make no mistake, the GOP is in trouble. But conservatism is not. Why? No conservative has lost. McCain was no conservative. His proudest achievements have been those where he crossed the aisle and put together some horrible legislation with some pretty liberal Democrats (Feingold?). His biggest ally is a center-left Scoop Jackson-style quasi-Democrat, Joe Lieberman. The GOP in the House and Senate haven't been conservative for quite some time - maybe back when they were opposing Clinton, but not since Bush got in. We all wanted Bush to be conservative, and he was on social issues, but he never was on spending - "compassionate conservatism" is code for moderate. No, this was not a defeat of a conservative GOP - this was 1976 and Gerald Ford, or 1996 and Bob Dole.
My fear now is that we are going to turn the reigns over to CINOs - conservatives in name only. I love Giuliani, but he is no conservative. I love Romney, but he is, at best, a recent convert to conservatism, and not convincingly so yet. Huckabee? I can't stand him. Still can't. Not only is it a hoax to claim him as any kind of conservative standard bearer, but on a personal note, after his belittling my religious beliefs to boost him ahead of Romney, I now find the man repugnant, and wouldn't support him for local dogcatcher.
Palin shows promise, but she came out too early. I liked her, but it was not a wise move by McCain. I think she will make a great candidate someday, but by adding her to the ticket, McCain effectively negated his "experience" argument against Obama. She was a first term governor. She has done some good things there, and I think she is a rising star. I hope this hasn't soured her chances in the future. Jindal also has the potential to come out as a star for the GOP. In my mind, he was a much stronger choice than Palin, which is why I am glad he wasn't picked. I never thought McCain would win, and worried that any running mate would have been tarnished from it. To my mind, McCain would have done well to pick Fred Thompson. I think Fred would have been a formidable opponent, and I think he would have talked rings around Biden.
So there it is. Democrats, you now have your dreams realized. A black Democrat in the White House, Bush out, and commanding majorities in Congress, the likes of which Democrats haven't seen for 3 decades. But you know what they say. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Beginning inauguration day, 2009, all of this becomes yours. You own it. Bad economic numbers? Your fault. Troops still in Iraq? Your fault. Death toll rising in Afghanistan? Your fault. Jobless numbers rising? Your fault. No more blaming others. No more blaming Bush. You want the troops out? Take them out, like you pledged to. Nobody left to stop you. "Rich" not paying their "fair share" in taxes? Raise them, and watch revenues fall, jobs fall, jobs shipped overseas to more business-friendly tax environments, and the economy plunging further into recession.
I now get to be the happy warrior, playing the loyal opposition. Don't worry, I am not going to mimic my colleagues on the left, and spend the next 4 years (Oh, dear Lord, let it be only 4) drawing depictions of Obama as a Nazi. But don't tell me to support him either, any more than acknowledging that he is my president. That I will do. But turnabout is fair play.
Obama won. He is to be congratulated. He won with the largest margin of any Democrat since Johnson. He outperformed Clinton (both times) and Carter (not necessarily a high bar to overcome, but, still). Now let us see if it really all was jut hot air regarding how an Obama presidency would finally transcend race in this country. Can we now do away with quotas and affirmative action and race-based admissions? Do we really need them when a black man can win the presidency with a commanding majority, and not just a plurality?
I sincerely pray that my fears of an Obama presidency won't come true, but I worry that is too much to hope for. He has the White House, and Dems have even stronger majorities in both houses of Congress - better than the Republicans had. Not filibuster-proof, but on the right issues, it just might, given that there are still some very fickle GOP senators in there, who I place as much faith in regarding their stalwart GOP-loyalty as I do in my 3-year old obeying me - I am happy when it happens, but nor surprised when it doesn't.
Dems now have what they wished for - the legislative and executive branches. If predictions are true, they should also be able to solidify a Roe-worshipping panel in the judiciary to ensure that this travesty of a decision is never given any serious threat. Obama campaigned in the primaries as very liberal. In the general, he tacked more to the center. It is hard to say exactly which was more accurate - because we know so little about him. What little we do know makes his centrist statements ring hollow. We know that in his very limited career as a U.S. Senator, he voted more liberal than anybody else in the Senate. We know he amassed a liberal voting record, when not voting present, in the Illinois senate. We know he has made some very liberal statements in interviews in the past. We know he has associated with some extremely radical people in his life - Ayers, Dohrn, Wright, Pfleger, Khalidi. We know he has also associated with some criminal figures - Rezko. Do I think he espouses their most vicious beliefs? No. Do I think he has some common ground with them? Yes. And that is what scares me. I don't think he wants to bomb government buildings, like Ayers did. But does he agree with Ayers' radical views on education? And will that be reflected in his appointments in education positions? I don't think he supports the terrorist actions of the PLO. But will he share an antipathy towards Israel, our only staunch and reliable ally in the Middle East? And if I don't believe that he has the same hateful feelings towards American and its government that Wright has, I also believe he won't stand up to those who do, so long as having their support is politically advantageous.
I fear that Obama and Reid and Pelosi will take this opportunity to pass a myriad of leftist legislative pieces that they have been dying to pass for some time now. Card check. Freedom of Choice. Fairness Doctrine. "Tax cuts" to the 45% of Americans who don't even pay taxes in the first place. He said that he will cut the taxes on 95% of Americans, that he will only raise taxes on the top 5%, those making $250,000/year and above. But the IRS numbers don't match. According to the IRS, the threshold for the top 5% of earners is $153,542. Maybe that is why the number that Joe Biden was saying was $150,000, not $250,000. Or why Bill Richardson put the line at $120,000. The top 5%, people earning $153,542 and above, already pay 60% of income taxes. The bottom 50% pay 2.99%. The threshold for the bottom 50% is <$32,000. So half the people pay only 3% of taxes. How are they being punished by "tax cuts to the rich?" Democrats would do well to remember the lesson the DNC learned in 1994, and the one learned by the GOP in 2006. Overreaching is a temptation, and it is often very costly in midterm elections. I believe, though, that the temptation will be too great, and the hunger too strong, and we will see some very aggressive, very liberal action quickly, while a whipped GOP mistakenly views yesterday as a message to get out of the way.
This was not a historic election based on voter turnout. 3 million fewer votes were cast in this election than in 2004. There was a 9 million vote swing between 2004 and 2008, because Obama pulled in 3 million more votes than Kerry did, and did it brilliantly in some key states, while McCain pulled in 6 million fewer votes than Bush did. McCain was not the man to win this election.
And for the GOP? Make no mistake, the GOP is in trouble. But conservatism is not. Why? No conservative has lost. McCain was no conservative. His proudest achievements have been those where he crossed the aisle and put together some horrible legislation with some pretty liberal Democrats (Feingold?). His biggest ally is a center-left Scoop Jackson-style quasi-Democrat, Joe Lieberman. The GOP in the House and Senate haven't been conservative for quite some time - maybe back when they were opposing Clinton, but not since Bush got in. We all wanted Bush to be conservative, and he was on social issues, but he never was on spending - "compassionate conservatism" is code for moderate. No, this was not a defeat of a conservative GOP - this was 1976 and Gerald Ford, or 1996 and Bob Dole.
My fear now is that we are going to turn the reigns over to CINOs - conservatives in name only. I love Giuliani, but he is no conservative. I love Romney, but he is, at best, a recent convert to conservatism, and not convincingly so yet. Huckabee? I can't stand him. Still can't. Not only is it a hoax to claim him as any kind of conservative standard bearer, but on a personal note, after his belittling my religious beliefs to boost him ahead of Romney, I now find the man repugnant, and wouldn't support him for local dogcatcher.
Palin shows promise, but she came out too early. I liked her, but it was not a wise move by McCain. I think she will make a great candidate someday, but by adding her to the ticket, McCain effectively negated his "experience" argument against Obama. She was a first term governor. She has done some good things there, and I think she is a rising star. I hope this hasn't soured her chances in the future. Jindal also has the potential to come out as a star for the GOP. In my mind, he was a much stronger choice than Palin, which is why I am glad he wasn't picked. I never thought McCain would win, and worried that any running mate would have been tarnished from it. To my mind, McCain would have done well to pick Fred Thompson. I think Fred would have been a formidable opponent, and I think he would have talked rings around Biden.
So there it is. Democrats, you now have your dreams realized. A black Democrat in the White House, Bush out, and commanding majorities in Congress, the likes of which Democrats haven't seen for 3 decades. But you know what they say. Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it. Beginning inauguration day, 2009, all of this becomes yours. You own it. Bad economic numbers? Your fault. Troops still in Iraq? Your fault. Death toll rising in Afghanistan? Your fault. Jobless numbers rising? Your fault. No more blaming others. No more blaming Bush. You want the troops out? Take them out, like you pledged to. Nobody left to stop you. "Rich" not paying their "fair share" in taxes? Raise them, and watch revenues fall, jobs fall, jobs shipped overseas to more business-friendly tax environments, and the economy plunging further into recession.
I now get to be the happy warrior, playing the loyal opposition. Don't worry, I am not going to mimic my colleagues on the left, and spend the next 4 years (Oh, dear Lord, let it be only 4) drawing depictions of Obama as a Nazi. But don't tell me to support him either, any more than acknowledging that he is my president. That I will do. But turnabout is fair play.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday Follow-up
I'll admit it, my prospects look bleak. I know that I am being labeled as one of those angry conservatives who is willing to cut off his nose to spite his face. But I still won't vote for McCain or Huckabee, and I certainly won't vote for a McCain/Huckabee ticket. I am not counting Romney out yet, but it is going to take a miracle right now for him to beat McCain. Especially if Huckabee stays in it and we continue to have more West Virginia scenarios play out where Huckabee runs block for McCain.
Maybe McCain can win the general election. However, I am far from convinced of that. In race after race last night, the individual totals in each state for either Obama or Clinton, regardless of who won the state, in many cases totaled more than the combined vote counts for all of the Republican candidates. Right now, it looks like McCain is cinching up the nomination to be a less likable Bob Dole.
Maybe a McCain presidency would be more conservative than I think. Let's hope so. But I won't bet on it. If Republicans do poorly in this election in the Senate and the House, and the Democrats gain a filibuster proof majority, does anybody really believe that McCain would have any objection to signing his immigration bill, unchanged, if sent to his desk? Or would a Republican minority stand up to him on the issue? Sure, they stood up to Bush when he was riding low in the polls, but a newly elected president? Or what about taxes? And we know he will sign legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research. Let's face it, a McCain presidency is just as much of a crap shoot as a Clinton presidency. McCain takes it as a point of pride that he has stood in opposition to conservative principles. Stop citing to me his conservative rating from 20 years ago. Maybe he was more conservative then. He isn't now. They have to bring Bob Dole out of retirement to tell us that back when he was in the Senate (1992), McCain was a good conservative?
I know, I know, Reagan signed the last terrible immigration bill, so McCain is just the same as Reagan. Bull crap! Maybe Reagan did sign that bill, but if he were here now, in the presidency, he would look at what a failure that one was, and realize that signing a bill that goes even further would be sheer lunacy. Reagan also would not have opposed the Bush tax cuts because they, as McCain described, would only benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. McCain is not the logical heir of Reagan. I agree that Romney isn't either, but an ascending conservative, to me, is preferable to a descending conservative who has a freakish desire to be loved by the mainstream media, and loves poking a stick in the eyes of conservatives to get that media adoration.
Sorry, if you are telling me my choices are Hillary and McCain, I may have to sit this one out.
Maybe McCain can win the general election. However, I am far from convinced of that. In race after race last night, the individual totals in each state for either Obama or Clinton, regardless of who won the state, in many cases totaled more than the combined vote counts for all of the Republican candidates. Right now, it looks like McCain is cinching up the nomination to be a less likable Bob Dole.
Maybe a McCain presidency would be more conservative than I think. Let's hope so. But I won't bet on it. If Republicans do poorly in this election in the Senate and the House, and the Democrats gain a filibuster proof majority, does anybody really believe that McCain would have any objection to signing his immigration bill, unchanged, if sent to his desk? Or would a Republican minority stand up to him on the issue? Sure, they stood up to Bush when he was riding low in the polls, but a newly elected president? Or what about taxes? And we know he will sign legislation to expand embryonic stem cell research. Let's face it, a McCain presidency is just as much of a crap shoot as a Clinton presidency. McCain takes it as a point of pride that he has stood in opposition to conservative principles. Stop citing to me his conservative rating from 20 years ago. Maybe he was more conservative then. He isn't now. They have to bring Bob Dole out of retirement to tell us that back when he was in the Senate (1992), McCain was a good conservative?
I know, I know, Reagan signed the last terrible immigration bill, so McCain is just the same as Reagan. Bull crap! Maybe Reagan did sign that bill, but if he were here now, in the presidency, he would look at what a failure that one was, and realize that signing a bill that goes even further would be sheer lunacy. Reagan also would not have opposed the Bush tax cuts because they, as McCain described, would only benefit the rich at the expense of the poor. McCain is not the logical heir of Reagan. I agree that Romney isn't either, but an ascending conservative, to me, is preferable to a descending conservative who has a freakish desire to be loved by the mainstream media, and loves poking a stick in the eyes of conservatives to get that media adoration.
Sorry, if you are telling me my choices are Hillary and McCain, I may have to sit this one out.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
I will not vote for McCain (or Huckabee)!
There it is. I have said it. I would rather see a Democrat in the White House (not with my vote, though) than vote for either of these two. Here is why:
McCain will sign McCain/Kennedy, if it were to come to his desk. He has said he would. This immigration bill was a travesty that President Bush should have never supported. The fact that McCain spoke with such disdain, and perpetuated the myth that those of us who opposed his bill were anti-immigration and racist xenophobes only solidifies in my mind that he doesn't deserve my vote.
McCain gave us McCain/Feingold, a law that helped to rob such groups as those who are pro-life and pro-gun rights of their 1st amendment right to free speech in letting people know how their incumbent representatives in Washington stand on those issues.
McCain considered the possibility of running as John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Enough said.
McCain formed the Gang of 14 that permitted the Democrat minority to block votes on conservative justices to federal courts.
McCain voted both times against the Bush tax cuts. I don't believe his current reasoning that it was because they weren't coupled with spending cuts. At the time, he sounded just like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, objecting to the tax cuts because they would only benefit the rich - typical class warfare rhetoric.
McCain wants to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, presumably relocating these homicidal maniacs to United States soil, where the ACLU will have a greater ability to get them constitutional protections they are not entitled to.
McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation. He feels that Justice Alito is too conservative. And now you really expect me to believe that he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
McCain is perhaps even more liberal on environmental policies than even Clinton or Obama.
McCain opposes drilling in ANWR.
He is not the consistent conservative he paints himself as. In 2007, now that he has a shot at the nomination, he thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, in 1999 he said we would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. In addition, his support of embryonic stem cell research hardly makes him a stalwart pro-life champion.
Let's not forget his role in the Keating 5 scandal, because you know the Democrats won't. Back then he wasn't so opposed to taking soft money.
The only area I agree with McCain on is the war. But let's face it. If Hillary wins the election, she is going to do whatever is going to help her the most, regardless of what she has promised up until now. Not a single one of her policy positions has remained firm since she started this race. If Iraq is going well when she took office, she would no sooner withdraw troops and risk being blamed for stealing defeat from the jaws of victory than shoot herself in the head. And if things go south on her, then 2012 should be a cake walk. The country will be able to see once and for all why it is that Republicans claim that Democrats are weak on defense. I don't think breaking down at negotiations is going to impress Ahmadinejad as much as it did with those saps in New Hampshire.
And let's not forget the spoiler, Mike Huckabee. Other than his evangelical Christian credentials, it is amazing that so many people view this man as the standard bearer of the conservative cause, especially considering how much water he is now carrying for McCain. With the exception of Giuliani, I can't think of anybody that has kissed up to McCain more in the last little while. Huckabee can't win, and he knows it. Does it seem odd to anybody else that Huckabee is running a campaign against Romney, the guy who is in 2nd place, rather than against McCain, the frontrunner? It was McCain that bumped him out in South Carolina, not Romney. Huckabee has run a vicious attack against Romney, slurring his religion, and now is running a campaign to split the conservative vote so that the nomination will go to McCain, hoping that he might get a juicy position in a McCain presidency, maybe even as a running mate, that could then propel him to the top spot later on. I don't believe that McCain will kill the Republican party, I believe that Huckabee will.
Now I am not going to argue that Romney is the most conservative guy out there, or that he is the legitimate heir to the Reagan legacy. I do believe that he will be more conservative than Bush, whereas McCain will be more liberal than Bush. I do believe that Romney is the more capable in terms of economic policy. Romney was not always as conservative as he now seems. But I would rather have a candidate that once seemed more liberal, but lately has become more conservative, as opposed to a man who used to be more conservative, but lately has become more liberal. And I certainly wouldn't vote for a man who has been, and remains, liberal, but who says, "Vote for me, because I'm a Christian."
Romney is the person who needs to win the nomination. Nobody else will get my vote. It won't kill the Republican party if McCain wins. We will be back to where we were in 1976. It will be a good opportunity to purge the party of RINOs. We have finally jettisoned people like Lincoln Chafee. Maybe the silver lining in all of this is that if McCain wins the nomination, we will at least not have him in the Senate anymore.
McCain will sign McCain/Kennedy, if it were to come to his desk. He has said he would. This immigration bill was a travesty that President Bush should have never supported. The fact that McCain spoke with such disdain, and perpetuated the myth that those of us who opposed his bill were anti-immigration and racist xenophobes only solidifies in my mind that he doesn't deserve my vote.
McCain gave us McCain/Feingold, a law that helped to rob such groups as those who are pro-life and pro-gun rights of their 1st amendment right to free speech in letting people know how their incumbent representatives in Washington stand on those issues.
McCain considered the possibility of running as John Kerry's running mate in 2004. Enough said.
McCain formed the Gang of 14 that permitted the Democrat minority to block votes on conservative justices to federal courts.
McCain voted both times against the Bush tax cuts. I don't believe his current reasoning that it was because they weren't coupled with spending cuts. At the time, he sounded just like Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, objecting to the tax cuts because they would only benefit the rich - typical class warfare rhetoric.
McCain wants to shut down the Guantanamo Bay terrorist detention facility, presumably relocating these homicidal maniacs to United States soil, where the ACLU will have a greater ability to get them constitutional protections they are not entitled to.
McCain voted for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's confirmation. He feels that Justice Alito is too conservative. And now you really expect me to believe that he will appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
McCain is perhaps even more liberal on environmental policies than even Clinton or Obama.
McCain opposes drilling in ANWR.
He is not the consistent conservative he paints himself as. In 2007, now that he has a shot at the nomination, he thinks that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. However, in 1999 he said we would not support the repeal of Roe v. Wade. In addition, his support of embryonic stem cell research hardly makes him a stalwart pro-life champion.
Let's not forget his role in the Keating 5 scandal, because you know the Democrats won't. Back then he wasn't so opposed to taking soft money.
The only area I agree with McCain on is the war. But let's face it. If Hillary wins the election, she is going to do whatever is going to help her the most, regardless of what she has promised up until now. Not a single one of her policy positions has remained firm since she started this race. If Iraq is going well when she took office, she would no sooner withdraw troops and risk being blamed for stealing defeat from the jaws of victory than shoot herself in the head. And if things go south on her, then 2012 should be a cake walk. The country will be able to see once and for all why it is that Republicans claim that Democrats are weak on defense. I don't think breaking down at negotiations is going to impress Ahmadinejad as much as it did with those saps in New Hampshire.
And let's not forget the spoiler, Mike Huckabee. Other than his evangelical Christian credentials, it is amazing that so many people view this man as the standard bearer of the conservative cause, especially considering how much water he is now carrying for McCain. With the exception of Giuliani, I can't think of anybody that has kissed up to McCain more in the last little while. Huckabee can't win, and he knows it. Does it seem odd to anybody else that Huckabee is running a campaign against Romney, the guy who is in 2nd place, rather than against McCain, the frontrunner? It was McCain that bumped him out in South Carolina, not Romney. Huckabee has run a vicious attack against Romney, slurring his religion, and now is running a campaign to split the conservative vote so that the nomination will go to McCain, hoping that he might get a juicy position in a McCain presidency, maybe even as a running mate, that could then propel him to the top spot later on. I don't believe that McCain will kill the Republican party, I believe that Huckabee will.
Now I am not going to argue that Romney is the most conservative guy out there, or that he is the legitimate heir to the Reagan legacy. I do believe that he will be more conservative than Bush, whereas McCain will be more liberal than Bush. I do believe that Romney is the more capable in terms of economic policy. Romney was not always as conservative as he now seems. But I would rather have a candidate that once seemed more liberal, but lately has become more conservative, as opposed to a man who used to be more conservative, but lately has become more liberal. And I certainly wouldn't vote for a man who has been, and remains, liberal, but who says, "Vote for me, because I'm a Christian."
Romney is the person who needs to win the nomination. Nobody else will get my vote. It won't kill the Republican party if McCain wins. We will be back to where we were in 1976. It will be a good opportunity to purge the party of RINOs. We have finally jettisoned people like Lincoln Chafee. Maybe the silver lining in all of this is that if McCain wins the nomination, we will at least not have him in the Senate anymore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
