During Monday night’s meeting, Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) cut off ranking member and former Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) while he was questioning Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) on a commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations bill. Chairwoman Slaughter asked Dreier: “You want to talk about the previous bill?”Parliamentary process semantics? Perhaps. Democrats drunk with power? Maybe. Good for American? Absolutely not. When debate disappears, so does democracy.
Dreier responded, “There are a number of things I want to talk about. Do I not have a right to do that? Do I not have a right to question the chairman of the Appropriations Committee on the process we are about to begin here for the 13 appropriations bills that he and his subcommittee chairmen are going to be considering? Am I not allowed to ask him questions?”
Slaughter basically told him no, saying, “We have already finished the roll call and accepted that bill, and we are ready to move on now.”
Dreier responded, “So I am not allowed. So I am sorry, I have overstepped my bounds if I am not allowed to talk about the overall appropriations process with the chairman of the committee. So thank you very much. I yield back my time.”
At that, Slaughter looked at Dreier and moved on without any more GOP input, we’re told. “Even the Democrats on the committee were stunned to silence,” an observer tells Shenan, adding, “We knew this day was coming, but it really is a sad day when the Democrats stop any form of questioning between the Republicans and chairmen who are presenting their bills before the committee.”
June 30, 2009
An unsustainable American national debt jeopardizes the future of the country as an economic and military superpower. As the shining city on a hill, the bastion of freedom and democracy for countries around the world, as the defender of freedom, liberty and justice, America has not only a vested interest but a DUTY to keep itself from crumbling as did the Roman Empire and the Greek Empire before it. The United States is not an empire. It's simply a country that institutionalized freedoms, democracy, and justice for all. Nowhere else in the world are people as free to choose the path of their own lives as in America. No one should be denied what Americans have. Perhaps someday those freedoms will be universal. But if America fails to keep itself from going off the rails now (or ever), then that future becomes inherently jeopardized.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid spending. Privatizing them would be better - it proves that they will be off the books in the future and therefor not a sword of Damocles hanging over America's head in perpetuity. Drastic, but even so, still likely not enough to avoid some economy-dampening massive tax increases or massive program cuts to everything the government does.
Iraqi's blame Iran for the turmoil.
And in the news today:
"The withdrawal of American troops is completed now from all cities after everything they sacrificed for the sake of security," said Sadiq al-Rikabi, a senior adviser to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "We are now celebrating the restoration of sovereignty."To the point about dishonesty, the AP news story felt compelled to include this comment, but none from those Iraqi's thankful to America.
The Pentagon did not offer any comment to mark the passing of the deadline.
Fireworks, not bombings, colored the Baghdad skyline late Monday, and thousands attended a party in a park where singers performed patriotic songs. Loudspeakers at police stations and military checkpoints played recordings of similar tunes throughout the day, as Iraqi military vehicles decorated with flowers and national flags patrolled the capital.
"All of us are happy — Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds on this day," Waleed al-Bahadili said as he celebrated at the park. "The Americans harmed and insulted us too much."Isn't that just wonderful? I'm sure every Iraqi feels the way al-Bahadili feels and to a man, woman or child, no one is happy to be free of Saddam and grateful to America for giving them freedom and quelling the violence (for the most part) before leaving.
On the surface, he appears to be correct. The President is practically treating Iranian protesters as anathema, waiting seemingly forever before making a weak protestation against the violent suppression being employed by the government. On the other hand he wasted no time condemning the overthrow of the Mini-Chavez wannabe-be-President-for-life Zelaya.
But there's an underlying consistency to be sure. Zelayawanted totalitarian power and lost it. Obama criticized the coup. Ahmedinejad and Khameni want total power and are struggling to keep it. Obama is trying to stay hands off as much as he can get away with.
The consistency? Supporting fascism. In each case the President is on the side of the ruling class. In the case of Iran he's playing wait-and-see on the open invite to Ahmedinejad. He has no choice. The suppression is to brutal and too public for him to do otherwise. But make no mistake, Obama does not see the followers of Mousavi, the youth of the nation, those having hope and wanting change, the way he sees his own supporters. If he did, he would have been all over the election results and subsequent farce of an investigation and then violence.
The motive for him to side with the ruling class? Firstly, he's now one of them. And Obama wants more centralized power for himself too. He says he doesn't but his actions betray his rhetoric. GM, Chrysler, the banks, firing IG's without consulting Congress are but a few obvious examples of his actions being autocratic.
He seemingly believes in government by an elite few. Clearly he also has an anti-capitalism bent which caused him to rush to judgment on Zelaya and end up on the same side as Chavez. Ironically in each case Honduras, Iran and America, the situation is combining the precepts of fascism (centralized power) with socialism (government ownership or dictate of the economy) - a concept tried to dramatic and horrific results in 1930's and 40's Germany.
The point though is that there IS a consistency out of the White House, you just have to look behind the obvious inconsistencies to find it. The consistency is not in the actions but rather the motivations.
Addendum: was it a coup? Yes, for the reason Ed gives about whisking the President out of the country. Was it for the right reasons? Yes. Should the US be against it or support it? Tricky.
As conservatives we always try to argue logic over emotion, thinking over feeling, so this is a tricky one for us. We also support the rule of law. Based on that alone, the coup therefore was illegal. The remediation would be for the army to look to the Congress or supreme court for direction. But what happens next in Honduras is unclear.
The other side of the argument is that Zelaya's actions were illegal too. For Obama it came down to like versus dislike. For conservatives it comes down to this - Honduras will not fall into a socialist/fascist style government like Venezuela. That's good. I think we have to quietly cheer for an outcome of a return to democracy in Honduras. The coup while unfortunate was necessary - if ever the Domino Theory had legs it is in the case of South America. Yes, we'd be siding with an illegal act, yes we'd be inconsistent with some of our principles. But this is a case of the other side being dirty (Zelaya copying Chavez) and consistent (Obama tacitly or overtly backing anti-democratic players). If we can't get a little dirty in foreign affairs then where does that leave us? It leaves America as a nation more vulnerable, and it leaves conservatives unable to compete with a Democratic machine.
But loosening our moral certitude to be able to fight injustice, foreign or domestic, is a slippery slope. There are no easy answers.
June 29, 2009
Castro and Chavez have sided with Zelaya, Chavez going so far as to say he would not let it stand, saying "We cannot allow a return to the past. We will not permit it."
In an effort to remain consistent, one would expect that President Obama would, while not recognizing the coup, at least recognize that trying to thwart the will of the people as expressed by apparently everyone else in government, Zelaya should not be supported. Just like he is expressing a desire for democracy in Iran.
Furthermore, President Obama, obviously against interventionism (as is the case in Iran, and Iraq), should denounce the pronouncement by Hugo Chavez that caries an ominous air of interventionism.
So far though,the President only has only decided to not recognize the coup as democratic...the problem it appears, is that pretzel logic gets more difficult the more you use it.
June 28, 2009
Let's look at our hole digging example above. If the government raises taxes to pay those diggers, it means it has to raise taxes on other workers or businesses to get that money. If 10 workers are paid $200,000 each that costs $2 million for the government to pay them. That means it has to pull that $2 million out of other's pockets. On the surface, the government has added no new value to the economy, just moved it from personal areas of spending to paying for holes to be dug and filled back up.
June 27, 2009
Bono Mack (let's call him Freddie Mac from now on)
Castle (apparently not)
Kirk (definitely no Captain)
Lance (More like Knife - as in 'in the back')
Lo Biondo (No Crompendo)
Smith [New Jersey]
Additionally Flake (no kidding) and Sullivan (Is that Andrew or a different traitor?) did not vote.
This with 44 Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against the bill. Damning. I just thought you should know.
June 26, 2009
In the middle of a deep recession, in the middle of a choking de-industrialization of the nation that once produced over 50% of the world's GDP, in the middle of a global cooling phase, the Democrats managed to pass a bill to kill what's left of American manufacturing, to kill the auto industry, to hamstring Boeing, and Caterpillar, and countless others.
On top of which, they decided to slide it through on a Friday afternoon, the day after Michael Jackson died - as close to the dead of night they could muster.
John Boehner went on Twitter (go there and search #nocap to see some tweets on the topic) and plead with conservatives to contact their representatives to stop the bill. Then he went on the floor of Congress and tried to affect a one-man filibuster.
He deserves a round of applause for his efforts.
The bill passed 219-212. The congressional representatives were flooded with calls to reconsider. It was closer than expected. It was almost turned back.
This could be a moment in time that people look back and say this was the moment America truly lost it's way and wandered into the wilderness for decades or perhaps even irreversibly. This is the wrong bill at the wrong time.
Maybe not. Maybe the world of Twitter can be even more effectively leveraged in the future, with less generals trying to promote their own agendas (myself included at times) and more foot soldiers willing to mount a coordinated effort to stop bad government decisions. America needs it. There is no government body dedicated to 'sober second thought' now - it's up to the people to do that for their elected, unlistening politicians.
Meanwhile, SLOW CLAP for John Boehner again. Excellent effort Congressman.
And I don't think that is entirely at odds with the hubris view. If the President wants to affect a sea change, a dynamic shift in the political culture that moves the country unalterably to the left, does that not make him a historical President? Even more so than a mundane cap-and-trade victory? So by thinking really-big-picture he is in a sense believing he can transcend the smaller victories and have his name written as one of the greatest Presidents of all time. The Muhammad Ali of Presidents if you will.
With that in mind, here's my interpretation of the priorities of this President:
(1) Ensure a dynastic rule of the Democratic party that will last for decades. Obama wants power centralized and held in Democratic hands for years to come. Closer to home he wants power centralized in his hands for years to come - as many as he can get. This requires a myriad of efforts including - staying popular, staying in the limelight, demonizing the Republicans and/or conservatives at every turn, fudging the the census with ACORN and gerrymandering districting efforts, a re-visitation of the Fairness Doctrine, working more and more closely with the complicit press, assigning control of the positions of captains of industry to a hand-picked, loyal few, rewarding those loyal to him (like the UAW), and punishing those opposing him (like IGs), thereby buying or intimidating loyalty, redistributing wealth to loyal voting blocks in order to ensure loyalty. Pretty much every decision can be viewed in the light of whether or not it will help Democrats retain power.
(2) Federalized Health Care - this is sort of an offshoot of the first point oddly enough. It's not about saving money because there are smarter options around than having the government take over. It's not about providing coverage to the uncovered, because there are non-governmental ways to ensure that as well. Governmental solutions run counter to the American way. But not the Chicago way. It's all about control. Health Care is a means to control who gets what health care, and thereby help enforce loyalty. They want to put Republicans in a position to have to cut back on the unsustainable costs so they can point out to the newly coddled class that "the Republicans don't like you - and this proves it." Don't buy the straw man argument that they'll use to say conservatives say the government can't compete so why are they so worried about a market-based government provider. The truth is the government is supposed to be the referee so it can't be a player in the game too or the bias in it's own favor will naturally seep out into it's actions. Ultimately it's a takeover. and takeovers are all about power.
(3) Environmental Reform - whether it's a cap and trade system or a tax, this is about two things - generating government revenue, so they can redistribute wealth in any social engineering way they desire and about, once again - control. The government can push you to behave in certain ways if they control the taxes and rules governing that behavior. They can subsidize behavior they like and penalize behavior they don't like. They can do it at a corporate level too if they want to do so. Are they really that interested in the environment? Are they really convinced Al Gore is right and thousands of dissenting scientists are out-to-lunch? Maybe. It doesn't matter - that's not the Obama motivation. The environmental movement has become the home of many socialists and communists and it's all about more government control.
(4) Hubris-related accomplishments - getting peace in the middle east (at any cost, including abandoning allies like Israel and embracing tyrants like the regime in Iran and ignoring those that won't play ball like North Korea), maybe getting an airport or a highway or 500 schools named after himself, dramatically scaling back on the military which will raise his star with the left quite far. Heck, why not cure cancer? All of these accomplishments would boost his own image. It may or may not be a top priority, but it would seem like it's still part of his thought process.
(5) Bankrupting the economy. This one I'm not sure about. In a perverse way, bankrupting the nation could be an act of hubris. He'd certainly be remembered for it. Conversely, perhaps the President sees the spending as an absolutely essential step to consolidating power. If that's the case, the money is inconsequential, it's a by-product of trying to achieve his objective. Or perhaps he is so far to the left, he secretly wants to see America fail so that he can have it re-built in a more socialist way. If the government collapses and the creditors are left holding the bag, when you start up the People's Republic of America, where can the bill collectors go? Nowhere. And who in the US will complain when they are told they're not going to be held responsible for the debt their government incurred? In fact, they'll argue, no one will be held responsible - voila - we've provided you with a 70 year free lunch (dating back to the Roosevelt days) and all you have to do is swallow this giant red pill.
What fits best with my previous assumptions is that it's all about obtaining and maintaining power. Those of you still enthralled by Obama have to wake up to the reality that the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world for one reason and one reason only: FREEDOM. Capitalism works because it is founded on freedom. Innovation is inspired by freedom. The pursuit of happiness is an option because of freedom. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are not 'negative rights' they are the most positive rights imaginable. Whether I have the Obama motivations right or not you've got to consider this; the actions entailed in the above points are all actions that will lessen your freedom. The question you have to ask yourself is this; Is that what you really want?
June 25, 2009
"Statement from First Lady Jenny Sanford
I would like to start by saying I love my husband and I believe I have put forth every effort possible to be the best wife I can be during our almost twenty years of marriage. As well, for the last fifteen years my husband has been fully engaged in public service to the citizens and taxpayers of this state and I have faithfully supported him in those efforts to the best of my ability. I have been and remain proud of his accomplishments and his service to this state.
I personally believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is not the job I held on Wall Street, or the campaigns I managed for Mark, or the work I have done as First Lady or even the philanthropic activities in which I have been routinely engaged. Instead, the greatest legacy I will leave in this world is the character of the children I, or we, leave behind. It is for that reason that I deeply regret the recent actions of my husband Mark, and their potential damage to our children.
I believe wholeheartedly in the sanctity, dignity and importance of the institution of marriage. I believe that has been consistently reflected in my actions. When I found out about my husband’s infidelity I worked immediately to first seek reconciliation through forgiveness, and then to work diligently to repair our marriage. We reached a point where I felt it was important to look my sons in the eyes and maintain my dignity, self-respect, and my basic sense of right and wrong. I therefore asked my husband to leave two weeks ago.
This trial separation was agreed to with the goal of ultimately strengthening our marriage. During this short separation it was agreed that Mark would not contact us. I kept this separation quiet out of respect of his public office and reputation, and in hopes of keeping our children from just this type of public exposure. Because of this separation, I did not know where he was in the past week.
I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will, and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be reciprocal. I believe Mark has earned a chance to resurrect our marriage.
Psalm 127 states that sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him. I will continue to pour my energy into raising our sons to be honorable young men. I remain willing to forgive Mark completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of humility and repentance.
This is a very painful time for us and I would humbly request now that members of the media respect the privacy of my boys and me as we struggle together to continue on with our lives and as I seek the wisdom of Solomon, the strength and patience of Job and the grace of God in helping to heal my family.
Also Thursday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the declared winner in the disputed June 12 election, told President Obama to stop "interfering" in Iran's affairs, the semi-official Fars news agency reported.
"The question is, do you want to use this kind of literature to address Iran and create a dialogue?" Ahmadinejad said. "If this is your position, then there is nothing to talk about."
Good thing that don't meddle approach was taken or he'd REALLY, REALLY be accusing the United states of interference.
At least the July 4th hot dog open invitation to the last man standing in Iran has been taken off the table.
You know the old saying: "Better LAME than never."
Click to enlarge.
These results show the President falling below the 50/50 threshold some time in September. This is all theoretical of course, as the biggest driving factor is the performance of the economy. If the current appearance of a recovery firms up into something solid, it will solidify his ratings. It would be ironic given that the stimulus money he has planned for has hardly touched the economy yet - in other words the economy would have recovered pretty much without any help from the President.
Looking at graphs like the above is inherently dangerous. Politics and economics are not linear, or for that matter logarithmic or polynomial on any level calculable level. Still these graphs point to a trend that has occurred since Inauguration Day, and they cannot be ignored.
How do you fight back against an oppressive government when you don't have a constitutional right to bear arms? It's tough, nigh on impossible. There's nothing like the 2nd Amendment in the Iranian constitution. So the people have to fight guns and thugs with rocks and flesh. The odds are not in their favor.
The uprising might be quelled soon. But only for now. The genie is out of the bottle now. Whether the change comes to Iran in 2 weeks or 20 years, it will come. And when it does, those who killed Neda, those who suppressed the will of the people, will come to face their justice.
June 24, 2009
Needless to say he's out for the GOP nomination. As he should be. Also needless to say is that this will get lumped in with the stupidity of Senator John Ensign of Nevada admitting to having had an affair last week, by the left of the blogosphere, not to mention NBC, CBS, ABC, and of course MSNBC (aka "The Mouthpiece" or "Mouthpiece NBC").
The problem with that is that the scandal is specific to Mark Sanford (as is Ensign's to him). The Democrats were wise to distance themselves from Rod Blagojevich and then Roland Burris (before they decided to embrace him and then re-distance themselves).
As conservatives, we need to distance ourselves from Sanford because he has betrayed our values. No one is perfect, and he may deserve to be forgiven if he truly works to fix the damage he has done to his family. But he does not deserve their forgiveness - they can forgive him if they feel the want to forgive him. Similarly he does not deserve to be a standard bearer for the Republican party or for conservative values. He has betrayed those values, regardless of whether he firmly believes them or not. Actions speak louder than words. Sanford's actions right now are drowning out anything he's ever said and his previous words, by this action have lost credibility. Let's not let the same thing happen to a Republican party by preaching family values and then ignoring them out of some sort of imagined convenience.
Let's also be clear - not every conservative is an adulterer just as not every Democrat is a tax cheat. This is a distraction from the real issues of the day - Iran, the economy, North Korea, deficits etc. Sanford was wrong, just as Jon Edwards was wrong. How we prove we mean what we say is by distancing ourselves from Sanford's behavior as opposed to the way Democrats for the most part remained silent on the Edwards affair.
That is the only way to move beyond this black mark on the GOP. And it will force Sanford to focus on reconciling with his family, which is something he should have been doing all along.
UPDATE: The Sanford and Hon fallout starts - Campaign Spot on National Review Online
The OECD has upgraded this year's forecast for the U.S. to a 2.8% contraction in GDP from a 4% drop previously. However, it has cut its projections for the euro zone and now expects a 4.8% contraction in GDP compared with a 4.1% fall previously.This is in direct contrast to it's previous forecast and also the recent World Bank pronouncement.
The World Bank cut its 2009 forecast, predicting that global growth will shrink by 2.9% versus its earlier forecast for a 1.7% contraction.This is in contrast to the previous World Bank pronouncement and somewhat at odds with the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
The International Monetary Fund is going to raise its growth projections "modestly upward, mainly with regard to 2010," John Lipsky, first deputy managing director, said Friday.
The rate of decline in world economies has slowed, confidence is returning and forecasts of future production and demand are up, he said in an address prepared for delivery to a business group in Turkey.
But the recovery from the "Great Recession" is still fragile, as unemployment is rising and lenders are cautious about making loans.
"Even the upbeat indicators widely cited as representing 'green shoots' still point to a global recovery that would be sluggish by historic standards," Lipsky said.
These are supposed to be experts. Certainly there's enough discrepancy to say that the experts are unsure of what the future holds. They don't agree, not only with each other but with their own previous assessments. The discrepancies are to be expected - if predicting the future was a simple matter then there would be certainty and things would progress without dispute. But if the prognosticating experts can't get 100% accuracy on an NFL football game, with thousands of variables that can affect the outcome, you can't expect other experts who have billions of variables to consider, some that have probably never been identified as having some impact, to get the economic future of the entire planet, or a region or even a country right.
They can present their best estimates based on what models indicate, but if the experts don't agree, then clearly nothing is certain. The White House, Congressional Democrats, Senate Democrats and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner would have you believe otherwise. They are dead certain their stimulus package will work. They are dead certain their health care reform will save the economy. Just as others are dead certain they are wrong. And there's the real problem with how the Democrats have handled this crisis.
No real debate of ideas, and plowing ahead at breakneck speed they've tried to lock the country into a path that doesn't necessarily provide a rosy outcome. Don't buy it. If the experts don't agree then you should be absolutely skeptical of what Democrats are saying about the recovery.
It reminds me of the double take Sweet Lou does in the movie Grind at about 28 seconds into this clip.
Sweet Lou: Sweet Lou's got everything he needs right here.
Eric: What? Okay. Dude, we're going cross-country. You know what that means.
Sweet Lou: Yeah!...No. What does that mean?
You can only pretend for so long to understand if you really don't. The US economy is not a teen movie - it's far too important to just take your best guess. That's especially true when you are dealing with the financial well being of the future of your country and the biggest economic engine on the planet. You don't plow ahead without a LOT of forethought and planning. Either reacting in a panic or using the crisis, is a dangerous and bad gamble.
Which leads to my last point about this whole experiment in socialism. When you are plotting your course forward, it's always best to rely on the learnings of the past. The Great Depression gave a great example of what not to do. But it's being done now in an exponential way, exactly as the Great Depression showed us not to try again. The larger point here is that learning from the past - standing on the shoulders of giants, building upon the foundation already built - is the smartest way to proceed. Trying to re-invent the wheel after thousands of years of successful use of the original design is sheer idiocy. Sure the wheel has been upgraded from stone to iron to having tires. But it's still round. This is why conservatism works - it's the slow and steady methodical improvement versus trying to make the square wheel work.
Conservatism, real conservatism not Republican conservatism of late, isn't flashy. It's not attention-grabbing. But it works. It's the tortoise versus the hare story. Improve by tweaking not ramming radical change down the throats of an unsuspecting public - a radical change that is more likely to be wrong than right, especially.
And realize it or not, a radical change is exactly what this is, and on the surface, it appears much more likely to fail than to succeed.
June 23, 2009
But the real 'a-ha' moment with this situation shows up further down in the Politico column by Michael Calderone:
CBS Radio's Mark Knoller, a veteran White House correspondent, said over Twitter it was "very unusual that Obama called on Huffington Post second, appearing to know the issue the reporter would ask about."So here's the juicy part - the CBS correspondent sounds a little irked. After the Mainstream Media carrying Obama's water through the primaries, the general election through post-inauguration, he's asking questions now from those even further left than the mainstream media. Despite being their darling, the President has perhaps started the process of jilting them.
Ouch. There was a lot of speculation on the right that the media was backing Obama because he was their guy. It was a means of re-establishing their clout. But if he's going to start asking questions of HuffPo 'reporters' then what's next Kos? The press at NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, New York Times et al. might start to see their clout in doubt and threatened by the new media on the left. This in addition to the new media on the right - Fox, Rush, right wing bloggers etc. Combine that threat with their already sinking ratings and in some cases, bleeding of cash - you have the beginnings of a potential rift.
Presidential honeymoons always end. For President Obama it ended early on for the right because of his blizzard of spending. But for the left, he may be causing his own early ending of the honeymoon by revealing his truest friends are further left. Either the mainstream media is going to be angry because they feel they are just as left as HuffPo and will feel used or else they are going to feel used and deceived because of his shift towards friendlier questioning. Either way, the MSM is going to feel a bit of antipathy over this. And if that's the case, the questions are bound to get just a little harder for President Obama.
All I can say is "about time".
Obama forcefully countered the idea that he's been slow to forcefully respond to Iran's violent crackdown on dissent.
"I don't think that's accurate," Obama said. "Track what I've been saying."
The president said he quickly responded after the election results and after violence broke out in the streets of Tehran, and that the United States has frequently condemned infringements on the freedom of assembly and speech for Iranians.
"We've been entirely consistent," Obama said.
Consistent and forceful are two entirely different things. Consistent, maybe. Consistently forceful? Not a chance. The arguments made on his behalf have been that he's being 'appropriately cautious'. Cautious and forcefully are hardly congruous.
Quickly and forcefully are not the same thing either. It's a comment aimed at deflecting valid criticism by positing a false choice type argument. He's arguing his critics are wrong because he was quick to respond and he's been consistent. Because he's supposedly talking tough now, therefore he was tough out of the gate and has always been tough.
In reality he can claim to be consistent if the word 'muted' is added. His responses by every evaluation - liberal or conservative - have bee low key. Consistently muted makes sense. In that respect he could claim consistency. He shouldn't want to claim to be that though.
He can claim to be fast in responding but his initial response was to continue along the path of engagement. Something he's clearly re-thinking. It also belies the 'consistent' label the President has applied to himself.
Wait and see if the liberal spin switches to "Obama's tough stance" very soon. It will be very telling if the narrative changes and the duration of the public memory on these things doesn't adjust Obama's popularity ratings downward. That would mean that liberals have correctly gauged the public's memory to be very short term politically.
June 22, 2009
How long before that approach catches on at Government Motors or anywhere in the US for that matter, given this President's autocratic reign and the upcoming Tea Party protests?
If the jackboot fits...I'm just saying...
Fox News just doesn't seem to be as energized about it as they previously were. Could they be gun shy after being labelled as being behind the Tea Parties? Hopefully not. Maybe it's just me. Or maybe they're just lying in the weeds for now. Not a bold strategy though, if that's the case. And this from blogger RightKlik - some bad news about Atlanta's Tea Party being shut down.
On the other hand Memphis is still a go, and it looks like the focus is on Tax and Spend and the deficit. Focused. I like that. Dayton has fireworks. Cool. And sites like TeaPartyDay appear to have things somewhat organized.
But the sense of size of this next set of impending protests seems somehow diminished, when in fact you'd think the opposite would be true. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I am.
-North Korea missiles aimed at Hawaii and they're threatening to harm the US if attacked (including apparently, having the sanctions enforced while they try to sell illegal arms to others).
-Bush managed to free Iraq from the oppression of Saddam Hussein. Obama's premature withdrawal has sparked an uptick in violent action in the country
June 21, 2009
It's starting to look a little bit like GM's stock price - in inescapable decline. If Obama's approval rating were a stock they might get de-listed before 2010.
June 20, 2009
Gateway Pundit has some very graphic and yet moving content on the violence in Tehran. Gateway Pundit has proven an excellent source of details. So has YouTube,
and of course Twitter. The point is, you can't follow this crisis closely through these media, and not be moved to want the protests to succeed. But it's tough to succeed without outside help.
Change? Hopefully. THAT would be 'change we need'. There are protests around the world. There are continued protests in Iran. If they continue to gain momentum perhaps they can affect a regime change.
It's important to realize that the crisis over the election came about as a result of a devastated economy - in turn a result of an over-reaching government domestically in Iran, and of course sanctions imposed by some in the West. This did not come from an Obama speech. This is a natural, homegrown uprising against a corrupt regime. It's a country where 60% of the population was not born when the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power in 1979. It's a country that because of modern technology simply couldn't remain in a Muslim dark ages because they could see the Internet. They can talk to those beyond their own borders.
Too many people are still saying that the US is right to stay as far on the sidelines as possible. That this was a endemic uprising is all the more reason to support the validity of the uprising and to condemn the government for any violence against the people. There's a huge difference between bombing Iran and condemning evil. If this had occurred in Iraq in 1991, as President Bush (41) had urged, things in that country would have gone entirely differently than they ended up going.
These protesters deserve worldwide support. They are in a VERY tough situation - they aren't armed for a rebellion. They are ruled by an autocratic and repressive mullahocracy. They are quite brave to protest. Some strong language is more than desired - it's required.
"As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away."
I guess that means we no longer have to worry about:
-The Fairness Doctrine.
-Actual debate in Congress
-Debate on the stimulus bill
-Debate on TARP
-Debate on Health care
-Debate on Justice Sotomayor
-Derision of Tea Parties
Why? Because suppressing ideas ultimately won't be successful. And:
"If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion."
If it applies to Iran, it applies to America too. Good new Republicans, conservatives, libertarians - your voices obviously count too. Of course it would be easier to believe he meant it for America if it was easier to believe he meant it for Iran.
Previously: This and this.