All I have been hearing today is the gaff from Obama about how there is a "bankruptcy in the US every 30 seconds because of medical costs." It took the opposition about 30 seconds to shoot that right out of the water as absolute swill... not a shred of proof to back it up.
And what do I get from Ryan? He's getting ready to pull a "Tony Soprano" on his old landlord for the $1,500 security deposit they still owe him.
That's the price of a recession, I guess... even Ryan sweats the almighty dollar.
{grin}
Thursday, March 5, 2009
And speaking of Louisianna...
I want to add that Bobby Jindal is a GREAT example of exactly what I was talking about in my last post.
Bobby has stated that he will REFUSE the stimulus dollars that Obama/Reid/Pelosi signed into law, BECAUSE it will increase the taxes residents of LA have to pay after only three years, and it will FORCE LA to change its state Constitution to accomodate those taxes. He can... and IS... showing that HIS plans work, because Louisianna has seen its job market GROW over the last 18 months, not fall. Unemployment in LA has stayed steady... not risen... and all of this is directly attributed to a "lower taxes" mentality in Baton Rouge that no one else in the country can claim to follow.
As I have said previously, Bobby has been in the public's eye promoting his agenda in LA... and its results... in direct opposition to the solutions proposed and flouted by the DNC. My question is: WHY only Jindal? Why aren't we hearing from the rest of the Republican leadership? Why is no one holding up Barbour or other GOP Governors and their agendas when they WORK, in direct contradiction to liberal ideals and promises?
{sigh}
Bobby has stated that he will REFUSE the stimulus dollars that Obama/Reid/Pelosi signed into law, BECAUSE it will increase the taxes residents of LA have to pay after only three years, and it will FORCE LA to change its state Constitution to accomodate those taxes. He can... and IS... showing that HIS plans work, because Louisianna has seen its job market GROW over the last 18 months, not fall. Unemployment in LA has stayed steady... not risen... and all of this is directly attributed to a "lower taxes" mentality in Baton Rouge that no one else in the country can claim to follow.
As I have said previously, Bobby has been in the public's eye promoting his agenda in LA... and its results... in direct opposition to the solutions proposed and flouted by the DNC. My question is: WHY only Jindal? Why aren't we hearing from the rest of the Republican leadership? Why is no one holding up Barbour or other GOP Governors and their agendas when they WORK, in direct contradiction to liberal ideals and promises?
{sigh}
After some further thought...
I wrote my last just as I was leaving my office to finish a project in another building, so I was a bit rushed. The jist is sound, but I left for home at about 1 AM and thought I'd add to it some. So, for the 45 minutes I was driving home, I pondered Ryan's post.
The more I thought, the more I was inclined to agree that much of the Democratic Party IS bent on trying to marginalize the Constitution as out-dated and irrelevant to anything that applies to traditional or conservative values in America. The First Amendment seems to apply ONLY to the pornography industry or to Hollywood execs... but not to people or communities where a display of the Ten Commandments would be appreciated, or to political commentators who voice a different opinion than the DNC.
Here's my opinion on how best to combat the Reid-Pelosi poison currently spinning through the halls of power...
For every single ultra-liberal proposal that Congress or Obama wants to push through the way that they pushed through the initial stimulus bill, the GOP (and this means specifically Steele and the RNC and Republican Congressional leadership... NOT "talk radio" pundits) needs to find a way to SHOW the public in clear and concise ways WHY the proposal is wrong, bad or ill-concieved. Put it into a press release, have it read in a daily radio address, have Steele and the Congressional leadership begin a tradition of "fire-side chats" to SHOW the population what is wrong with the liberal agenda being forced on America... just do SOMETHING to show that the opposition isn't OPPOSED to something for the sake of opposition. THAT is the message that the Left is bringing home now... there is nothing for the common man in the message of conservatism today, it is only for the super-rich, power-hungry types who rule Wall Street and go to church every Sunday.
Obama has learned one lesson from history, at least: you have to be seen to be doing SOMETHING to fix the problem by the public. "Hands off" is fantastic in political and economic theory, but it doesn't do those in America that really are in trouble any good NOW. They will gravitate and support the man that is seen to be doing SOMETHING, and Huey Long is my example from history. The man was an avowed crook... and I do mean "avowed". He was blatant in his cronyism, he routinely made references to fascist ideals in his speeches, and espoused the strongest form of big, bloated central government we've ever seen, before or since... yet this man's name is still spoken of fondly and with regard in the State of Louisianna to this very day, and LA is considered a "rock-solid" RED state! How can this be?
I feel that if someone is going to attribute this to his undeniable "entitlement" programs, you can also attribute some of it to the "work projects" that are still functional today... like the Huey P. Long Bridge in New Orleans, or UNO, or the first causeway across Lake Pontchertrain (something he championed, in fact, if he didn't actually finish). Back in the day, however, Long's political detractors simply labeled him a "communist" and kept pointing to his moral and ethical failings, rather than offer real substance to counter his positions.
The GOP can't afford to make this mistake again now. If the programs and agendas of Obama, Reid and Pelosi are bad for America, then the GOP has to show the evidence in a clear and measurable manner that will counter their talking points, one-on-one.
The more I thought, the more I was inclined to agree that much of the Democratic Party IS bent on trying to marginalize the Constitution as out-dated and irrelevant to anything that applies to traditional or conservative values in America. The First Amendment seems to apply ONLY to the pornography industry or to Hollywood execs... but not to people or communities where a display of the Ten Commandments would be appreciated, or to political commentators who voice a different opinion than the DNC.
Here's my opinion on how best to combat the Reid-Pelosi poison currently spinning through the halls of power...
For every single ultra-liberal proposal that Congress or Obama wants to push through the way that they pushed through the initial stimulus bill, the GOP (and this means specifically Steele and the RNC and Republican Congressional leadership... NOT "talk radio" pundits) needs to find a way to SHOW the public in clear and concise ways WHY the proposal is wrong, bad or ill-concieved. Put it into a press release, have it read in a daily radio address, have Steele and the Congressional leadership begin a tradition of "fire-side chats" to SHOW the population what is wrong with the liberal agenda being forced on America... just do SOMETHING to show that the opposition isn't OPPOSED to something for the sake of opposition. THAT is the message that the Left is bringing home now... there is nothing for the common man in the message of conservatism today, it is only for the super-rich, power-hungry types who rule Wall Street and go to church every Sunday.
Obama has learned one lesson from history, at least: you have to be seen to be doing SOMETHING to fix the problem by the public. "Hands off" is fantastic in political and economic theory, but it doesn't do those in America that really are in trouble any good NOW. They will gravitate and support the man that is seen to be doing SOMETHING, and Huey Long is my example from history. The man was an avowed crook... and I do mean "avowed". He was blatant in his cronyism, he routinely made references to fascist ideals in his speeches, and espoused the strongest form of big, bloated central government we've ever seen, before or since... yet this man's name is still spoken of fondly and with regard in the State of Louisianna to this very day, and LA is considered a "rock-solid" RED state! How can this be?
I feel that if someone is going to attribute this to his undeniable "entitlement" programs, you can also attribute some of it to the "work projects" that are still functional today... like the Huey P. Long Bridge in New Orleans, or UNO, or the first causeway across Lake Pontchertrain (something he championed, in fact, if he didn't actually finish). Back in the day, however, Long's political detractors simply labeled him a "communist" and kept pointing to his moral and ethical failings, rather than offer real substance to counter his positions.
The GOP can't afford to make this mistake again now. If the programs and agendas of Obama, Reid and Pelosi are bad for America, then the GOP has to show the evidence in a clear and measurable manner that will counter their talking points, one-on-one.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Screw me? Fire down, Pocohontas...
I meant that the issue comes up from the residents of DC... not either of the parties in question. Just like statehood for Puerto Rico, it comes up... and fades away. I do not deny that this Congress, with the obvious drive for power that Reid and Pelosi have in mind, may try even harder than ususal to cement their control of government by creating a new House seat via the District, but they do not have the super-majority, and it is rapidly becoming appearant that the Reid/Pelosi show isn't getting any more viewers simply because Obama is in the White House. Congressional approval is still at an all-time low.
As far as the "Founding Fathers" intentions regarding the representation of the District... I, too, trust their judgment, but I find the argument that when they formed the District and laid out the framework for its function, they probably didn't expect the population of the District to exceed the combined total of the five most populus colonies in 1776, which it does today at just under 600,000 people, and all of them unrepresented in Congress.
Just my thoughts though... no one is asking you to become an ideologue or expecting you to begin to "tow the line" the way you did not all that long ago...
As far as the "Founding Fathers" intentions regarding the representation of the District... I, too, trust their judgment, but I find the argument that when they formed the District and laid out the framework for its function, they probably didn't expect the population of the District to exceed the combined total of the five most populus colonies in 1776, which it does today at just under 600,000 people, and all of them unrepresented in Congress.
Just my thoughts though... no one is asking you to become an ideologue or expecting you to begin to "tow the line" the way you did not all that long ago...
No credit ...
. . . whatsoever.
*sigh*
Despite my philosophical, principled (read: Reagan Conservatism) driven arguments low these many years, which has seen me RIP into the hide of one G.W. Bush and the GOP in general (i.e. border security; spending; war strategy; bail outs; TARP; being "Democrat light" in general etc, etc) Titus still insists on labeling me with the occasional "partisan hack", point in case - his latest inference.
You noted that this DC congressional vote subject is "yawn", old news, won't happen and the GOP, especially Ryan, would be advocating it too if it were a "conservative Mecca", because the subject is nothing more then a partisan football, and they are Party men, not ideological, nor principled . . or even intellectually honest.
Well, let me muster all of my collective articulation, art and ability of prose to summarily issue a resounding: SCREW YOU!
I'm not some Party hack. I WOULD NOT advocate this if it were a town of 3 - Pat Buchanan, F. Ryan, and Rush Limbaugh, because of my respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers and their vision -a point I articulated in that last post. Would the GOP? Hell, I don't know, I'm fed up with them as it is, but not I. And you're wrong on another score - this most certainly does not "come up every 4 to 8 years." And is not just a traditional political football that goes nowhere this time around. Bush didn't advocate this, nor bring it up. Nor did Speaker Gingrich, Speaker Hastert, nor leader Trott nor his successor, the heart surgeon (whose name escapes me at the moment, Fisk maybe); and neither, in any meaningful way, did Pelosi nor Reid when they were in the minority from 2000-2006. It has been brought up before, no question, but not every election cycle, and certainly not with Democrats of this aggressiveness towards "change" controlling both Houses and the Oval Office (read: I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did it this time - this is no mere political banter anymore). And it certainly isn't some old go nowhere chestnut when seen in the light of the sweeping changes - regardless of Constitutionality, precedent or tradition - that Obama is engaging in during his first 60 days. It is another significant piece of his power grab puzzle that sees the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, at best as (in his words): "a set of negative liberties describing what the government can't do to you, but not listing what it should do on your behalf; and that's where the Warren Court didn't go far enough, wasn't radical enough." That description is scary in and of itself, especially when all other rights and privileges are clearly intended to be left to the states and the individual citizen. It is precisely the worry the founders had in even listing a Bill of Rights at all - there was fear (as I know you are aware) that they may be at some point interpreted as the "only" rights afforded individuals, rather then just specifying especially protected ones, leaving all others to the purview of the individual or state.
That is the context this DC seat advocation must be seen in - the sweeping, unprecedented, unconstitutional, ill advised, frightening Utopia Obama envisions as his mandate, if not calling from on high, that he was sent here for, to inflict on the rest of us.
****
The 10th . . . Pending my own reading, reaffirming state sovereignty always seems a positive for any conservative, however, I have the same initial reservation our founders did in trying to "specify" or "clear up" or "redefine" state's rights more directly - they may come to be interpreted as the ONLY rights (or general parameters laid down therein) afforded states rather then a simple or reaffirming clarification. Given MN is among the advocates this could be (remember, I haven't read it yet and am going off of your limited description) a rouse meant to clear the way for Obama to impose ever more burdensome federal mandates by being able to declare - "see, A, B and C are NOT specified in the 10th Amendment, I CAN mandate socialized this and federalized that."
But I will read it, and form a more permanent opinion then.
*sigh*
Despite my philosophical, principled (read: Reagan Conservatism) driven arguments low these many years, which has seen me RIP into the hide of one G.W. Bush and the GOP in general (i.e. border security; spending; war strategy; bail outs; TARP; being "Democrat light" in general etc, etc) Titus still insists on labeling me with the occasional "partisan hack", point in case - his latest inference.
You noted that this DC congressional vote subject is "yawn", old news, won't happen and the GOP, especially Ryan, would be advocating it too if it were a "conservative Mecca", because the subject is nothing more then a partisan football, and they are Party men, not ideological, nor principled . . or even intellectually honest.
Well, let me muster all of my collective articulation, art and ability of prose to summarily issue a resounding: SCREW YOU!
I'm not some Party hack. I WOULD NOT advocate this if it were a town of 3 - Pat Buchanan, F. Ryan, and Rush Limbaugh, because of my respect for the wisdom of our founding fathers and their vision -a point I articulated in that last post. Would the GOP? Hell, I don't know, I'm fed up with them as it is, but not I. And you're wrong on another score - this most certainly does not "come up every 4 to 8 years." And is not just a traditional political football that goes nowhere this time around. Bush didn't advocate this, nor bring it up. Nor did Speaker Gingrich, Speaker Hastert, nor leader Trott nor his successor, the heart surgeon (whose name escapes me at the moment, Fisk maybe); and neither, in any meaningful way, did Pelosi nor Reid when they were in the minority from 2000-2006. It has been brought up before, no question, but not every election cycle, and certainly not with Democrats of this aggressiveness towards "change" controlling both Houses and the Oval Office (read: I wouldn't be surprised if they actually did it this time - this is no mere political banter anymore). And it certainly isn't some old go nowhere chestnut when seen in the light of the sweeping changes - regardless of Constitutionality, precedent or tradition - that Obama is engaging in during his first 60 days. It is another significant piece of his power grab puzzle that sees the Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, at best as (in his words): "a set of negative liberties describing what the government can't do to you, but not listing what it should do on your behalf; and that's where the Warren Court didn't go far enough, wasn't radical enough." That description is scary in and of itself, especially when all other rights and privileges are clearly intended to be left to the states and the individual citizen. It is precisely the worry the founders had in even listing a Bill of Rights at all - there was fear (as I know you are aware) that they may be at some point interpreted as the "only" rights afforded individuals, rather then just specifying especially protected ones, leaving all others to the purview of the individual or state.
That is the context this DC seat advocation must be seen in - the sweeping, unprecedented, unconstitutional, ill advised, frightening Utopia Obama envisions as his mandate, if not calling from on high, that he was sent here for, to inflict on the rest of us.
****
The 10th . . . Pending my own reading, reaffirming state sovereignty always seems a positive for any conservative, however, I have the same initial reservation our founders did in trying to "specify" or "clear up" or "redefine" state's rights more directly - they may come to be interpreted as the ONLY rights (or general parameters laid down therein) afforded states rather then a simple or reaffirming clarification. Given MN is among the advocates this could be (remember, I haven't read it yet and am going off of your limited description) a rouse meant to clear the way for Obama to impose ever more burdensome federal mandates by being able to declare - "see, A, B and C are NOT specified in the 10th Amendment, I CAN mandate socialized this and federalized that."
But I will read it, and form a more permanent opinion then.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Everyone here should follow my example...
I just got done writing to both my State Senator, Lisa Baker (R) and my State Repressentative, Sandra Major (R), encouraging them to support the effort to re-affirm the sovereignty of the Commonwealth under the Tenth Amendment.
It takes ten minutes (far less time than it takes to read a post here), and it is an effort that will have a far-reaching impact on the Obama Administration, I am sure.
Quit screwing around and DO IT.
It takes ten minutes (far less time than it takes to read a post here), and it is an effort that will have a far-reaching impact on the Obama Administration, I am sure.
Quit screwing around and DO IT.
Let's talk about something NEW...
The question about DC's Congressional representation is one that rears it's head at least once every eight years, and it has since at least 1955. There is no question in my mind that Democrats are championing this now to solidify their control on political power in Congress... but this is almost obvious in its reasoning, and I would expect the GOP to do the same thing, were DC a traditionally "conservative" voting area... and I would expect Ryan to do the same thing, were he a resident of DC.
But I want to discuss a more surprising trend in American legislative politics... and that is the "Tenth Amendment Movement" currently sweeping the State legislatures across the country.
The number of States with resolutions pending is now at about 20, and this is a trend that will continue to grow, I am sure. Some of these resolutions are very succinct in their wording, too... OK and MN being among the most direct (yes, I said MN... home of Mondale, Wellstone, and the DFL Senator Al Franken). MO's HR 212 (which was replaced with HR 294, that removed Obama's name from the text of the bill) is way more specific in it's focus, but does still call for a recognition by the Federal government of the sovereignty of the individual States under the Tenth Amendment.
So, why this urge to re-assert the sovereignty of States NOW?
Think back to our last Democratic President. Clinton's first address to the nation has been quoted here (quite often, in fact) because he promised that "big government ends now"... something he failed to do. As did his predecessor, Bush Sr. and his replacement, Bush Jr. In fact, NO President in the last 100 years has actually REDUCED the size of government, and only 3 have reduced the rate at which that government grows (Truman, Ike and Reagan, with Reagan being the most successful). So, what is different now?
No President has ever made it his GOAL to increase the size and scope of Federal control the way Obama has. He PROMISES higher taxes, he PROMISES more programs, he PROMISES more spending. This Administration is making "tax and spend" its moniker... loudly and proudly. He has DOUBLED the national deficit in his first 50 days, and has now submitted a budget that will DOUBLE that next year, with the added burden that Federal funding for the majority of these programs and funds will end, and the States will be left with the job of paying for them through higher local taxes... taxes the individual States might not want to impose, but that Federal mandates will FORCE them to impose.
In the past, I have advocated a position that no Administration can avoid "moderation" and "compromise" once it takes office... but Obama is advocating real change, and I am delighted that the States are standing up and saying NO to change they do not think is in their best interest.
But I want to discuss a more surprising trend in American legislative politics... and that is the "Tenth Amendment Movement" currently sweeping the State legislatures across the country.
The number of States with resolutions pending is now at about 20, and this is a trend that will continue to grow, I am sure. Some of these resolutions are very succinct in their wording, too... OK and MN being among the most direct (yes, I said MN... home of Mondale, Wellstone, and the DFL Senator Al Franken). MO's HR 212 (which was replaced with HR 294, that removed Obama's name from the text of the bill) is way more specific in it's focus, but does still call for a recognition by the Federal government of the sovereignty of the individual States under the Tenth Amendment.
So, why this urge to re-assert the sovereignty of States NOW?
Think back to our last Democratic President. Clinton's first address to the nation has been quoted here (quite often, in fact) because he promised that "big government ends now"... something he failed to do. As did his predecessor, Bush Sr. and his replacement, Bush Jr. In fact, NO President in the last 100 years has actually REDUCED the size of government, and only 3 have reduced the rate at which that government grows (Truman, Ike and Reagan, with Reagan being the most successful). So, what is different now?
No President has ever made it his GOAL to increase the size and scope of Federal control the way Obama has. He PROMISES higher taxes, he PROMISES more programs, he PROMISES more spending. This Administration is making "tax and spend" its moniker... loudly and proudly. He has DOUBLED the national deficit in his first 50 days, and has now submitted a budget that will DOUBLE that next year, with the added burden that Federal funding for the majority of these programs and funds will end, and the States will be left with the job of paying for them through higher local taxes... taxes the individual States might not want to impose, but that Federal mandates will FORCE them to impose.
In the past, I have advocated a position that no Administration can avoid "moderation" and "compromise" once it takes office... but Obama is advocating real change, and I am delighted that the States are standing up and saying NO to change they do not think is in their best interest.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
