From WINK NEWS Campaign Central – WINK will carry the following debates live:
October 19, 2010 at 7:00
The Florida Senate Debate from Nova Southeastern University
October 20, 2010 at 7:00
The Florida Gubernatorial Debate from Nova Southeastern University
For more information on these debates: http://www.beforeyouvote.org/
In the event that you did not know it, you need a permit in Virginia to teach yoga. As Ilya Shapiro writes, getting a permit “entails paying $2500 and getting your “curriculum” approved by state bureaucrats, as well as other barriers to entry.” I don’t know what Virginia bureaucrats think they know about yoga, but apparently, they think highly of whatever knowledge they have, and believe that they can pass judgment on whether an individual is qualified to teach yoga to others. The mind reels.
Fortunately, the Institute for Justice is on the case, and fighting for economic freedom. But it is amazing that we actually have to have this argument. Equally amazing is the fact that we appear willing to put up with even more blatant examples of nanny-statism from the federal government.
TNL
RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
By Ernesto Londoño – microlimitedms@gmail.com
Read our UK charts: MW2 top, Tony Hawk tanks News for PC, PSP, DS, Xbox 360, PlayStation 3, and Wii.
Activision and Infinity Ward's shooter Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is still the best-selling game in the UK, despite a…
LoanSafe's worst media puppet of the week MSNBC's Keith Olbermann claimed that Fox News cooked up the ClimateGate story and that Steve Doocy, Gretchen.
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, December 7, 2009
BAGHDAD — Even as the U.S. military scrambles to support a troop surge in Afghanistan, it is donating passenger vehicles, generators and other equipment worth tens of millions of dollars to the Iraqi government.
Under new authority granted by the Pentagon, U.S. commanders in Iraq may now donate to the Iraqis up to $30 million worth of equipment from each facility they leave, up from the $2 million cap established when the guidelines were first set in 2005. The new cap applies at scores of posts that the U.S. military is expected to leave in coming months as it scales back its presence from about 280 facilities to six large bases and a few small ones by the end of next summer.
Some of the items that commanders may now leave behind, including passenger vehicles and generators, are among what commanders in Afghanistan need most urgently, according to Pentagon memos.
Officials involved say the approach has triggered arguments in the Pentagon over whether the effort to leave Iraqis adequately equipped is hurting the buildup in Afghanistan. Officials in the U.S. Central Command, which oversees both wars, have balked at some proposed handovers, and previously rejected an approach that would have granted base commanders even greater leeway.
U.S. commanders in Iraq say they have been judicious in assessing what equipment to earmark for donation. Alan F. Estevez, a deputy undersecretary of defense, wrote in an e-mail that “an important and vital goal is to leave behind fully functioning bases to the Government of Iraq to enable Iraq's civil capacities.”
But a U.S. military official critical of the process said the new regulations allow too much latitude to commanders, provide little oversight and fail to account for the urgent need of American forces in Afghanistan, which need the same kinds of items that the troops in Iraq are leaving behind.
ad_icon
“How can a generator or an SUV or a relocatable building be excess if you are buying the very same thing and sending it to Afghanistan?” said the official, who is involved in the process and spoke on the condition of anonymity.
“In Iraq, people drive around in new Yukons, Suburbans, Envoys and new pickups,” the official said. “In Kandahar, you find troops from the same U.S. Army driving around in broken-down, 15-year-old, right-hand-drive clunkers with bald tires.”
Brig. Gen. Peter C. Bayer Jr., the chief of staff for the ground forces command in Iraq, said that though the Army wanted to make equipment available to units in Afghanistan, it was often more cost-effective to donate vehicles and other goods to the cash-strapped Iraqi government than to pack and ship it.
“In many cases, we'll spend more between labor and transportation than the equipment is worth,” Brig. Gen. Bayer said. “We're not talking about green Army trucks or weapons systems or night-vision capabilities.” Under the surge that President Obama outlined last week, commanders in Afghanistan — a theater long eclipsed by Iraq — soon will need to accommodate 30,000 additional troops. The Pentagon had already begun moving gear and personnel from Iraq to Afghanistan, reflecting a shift that has made Afghanistan the new administration's top foreign policy priority.
Senior military officials have said that getting new equipment into Afghanistan presents a major logistical challenge. “To the extent we can leverage equipment that's being retrograded out of Iraq, we're going to do that to make that a little easier,” Brig. Gen. John W. Nicholson Jr., the director of the Pentagon's Pakistan-Afghanistan Coordination Cell, said last week in an online discussion with bloggers. “But a significant amount of this equipment will need to be brought in from elsewhere.”
Under federal law, government agencies must demonstrate that equipment they wish to donate is not needed by other U.S. agencies. If that criterion is met, equipment can be donated in exchange for “substantial benefits” to the United States.
James M. Richards
Vidor,TX
US Navy 1969-1972 Damage Control
jmrichards@aoop.net http://www.myspace.com/stoneagegeek
Travel in Memory of: Pvt Clinton Victor Richards, (Uncle) WWI, USA, KIA, GySgt Joseph B. Richards ,USMC, (Father) WWII, Deceased, SSgt Leroy Richards, USMC, (Uncle) WWII, Deceased, Pvt Dewitt E. Rabalais, USMC, Father in Law, Deceased, Col Gilbert Meibaum, USMC, VN, AO, SN Larry Slaymaker, USN, VN, KIA and each and every Brother and Sister who has worn the uniform and lifted their right hand to make the Promise to willingly die if need be to defend the freedoms of our Citizens and the innocents abroad.
A Mother asked President Bush, “Why did my Child have to die in Afghanistan?” Another Mother asked President Kennedy,”Why did my Child have to die in Vietnam?” Another Mother asked President Truman, “Why did my Child have to die in Korea?” Another Mother asked President F.D. Roosevelt,”Why did my Child have to die at Iwo Jima ?” Another Mother asked President W. Wilson, “Why did my Child have to die on the battlefield of France ?” Yet another Mother asked President Lincoln,”Why did my Child have to die at Gettysburg ?” And yet another Mother asked President G.Washington, “Why did my Child have to die near Valley Forge?” Long, long ago a Mother (Mary) asked, “Heavenly Father, why did my Child have to die on a cross outside Jerusalim?” All the answers are so near the same. One died to save our Souls and the others died to protect our Freedoms.
Posted in politics
Tagged american forces, base commanders, central command, deputy undersecretary of defense, e mail, equipment worth tens, gmail, google, government of iraq, iraqi government, leeway, military official, passenger vehicles, rssfeed, s central, troops in iraq, undersecretary of defense, vital goal, washington post, washington post foreign service
Days Of Glory adds a new chapter for many of us to the tale of World War II. It is centered on Arabs and French soldiers fighting for different reasons.
The basic plot of Days Of Glory is one we have seen before during many Sunday afternoons. Volunteers of an occupied territory (in this case North Africa) join the army to liberate their mother country (France) and fight against a greater evil (Nazi Germany). Our core group of heroes goes through the trials of being the new recruits and low men on the totem pole.
They get their first taste of combat and face some sort of major battle or tragic loss (losing all but four men in a mine field) before the grand finale where they fight to the death to hold the position, down to the last man. All the while, the sergeant is a jerk who shows moments of feelings and heart for his troops.
What sets this film apart is its twist to this tale. Our heroes are Arabs, one of whom only has one hand, from Algeria and they fight with other “African Troops.” The prejudices they face are greater than merely being new recruits. They are seen as cannon fodder, for the most part, in the eyes of the regular French military leaders and soldiers.
We are shown this in the first battle scene and can sense it throughout the film. The Arabs have to fight for respect and personnel liberties, proving that they can perform and lead just like anyone else. Fumo points out that it's much like the American Civil War film Glory with its story of African-Americans former slaves and freemen seen as lesser soldiers because of who they are and the color of their skin.
At times the story of Days Of Glory comes across as too layered. Multiple layers are fine in most cases when there is three hours to fully explore certain elements, but here some elements are shown in a single scene and appear simply thrown in. We understand them, but agree that they add more questions. One example is a church scene with two of our main characters.
Why they stumble into the church is unknown; perhaps to secure it? They resist looting the collection box while gazing at a mural of the crusades; they even make the comment of how much the Christian god has suffered. The point being that our boys have respect for other people's myths like every other decent person of the world.
Example two: after the first battle, there is a scene where a German soldier is attaching our one-armed wonder. We see the sergeant save him but have no idea why or how he was there in the first place. The scene shows why the one-armed fellow loves the sergeant so much and becomes his lackey.
Bringing us to another question, why in the hell is a one-armed man in the army to begin with? He joined that way and it's not like the army would overlook such a thing. He doesn't get much crap for being handicapped, either. I think his fellow soldiers would have given him hell for it since it's not like it adds to his ability as a warrior.
Then there are the unexplored origins of the sergeant. His past is revealed as his lackey finds a photo with “Mother” written on the back. Sarge's mom is an Arab, making him a half-breed. He hides his past to gain rank in the French army, shades of Hitler himself, and when called on his past, Sarge gets violent and abusive towards his lackey.
No war film is complete without a story of lovers torn apart. One of the boys is with a French woman for one, yes one, night. They fall madly in love yet are kept apart by the war. The terrible army even goes as far as refusing to allow letters to pass between the two lamenting lovers, revealing that they are and capable of love.
Strong points of the film include the fine shots of the countryside. The director has a beautiful and creative way of opening some sequences by moving from black and white to color. As the Germans are beaten back and as the army advances the cloud of doom is being lifted from the land.
The tale itself is a strong point and the acting is fine, but it's the overall plot that could have been done better. The message is a simple one: in the end these soldiers fought and died for the greater good of mankind and wound up with nothing. The African soldiers even had their pensions stalled, and to most of the world they were forgotten as fighters in that war.
Included on the DVD is a short film titled The Colonial Friend whose plot would have made a more memorable full-length film while telling the story of these unsung heroes. The way it stands now we have a good story rolled into an average WWII plot.
Written by Fantasma el Rey & Fumo Verde
Posted is National Posts news blog, watching the news so you don't have to with up-to-the-minute breaking stories, news from the Internet and takes from National Post writers.
Two weeks ago, I commented on Rupert Murdoch's threat that News Corp. was thinking of blocking Google from being able to search its Web sites: “Murdoch to Google: Drop Dead.” Now it appears that Microsoft and News Corp. are talking …
Bryan Ferry sent a note to fans announcing that he's begun work on a new solo album that's due in summer 2010 and features Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood, Flea and Nile Rodgers. Ferry posted some video from the studio on his official …
Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner is making few new friends in Congress these days, as a growing litany of bipartisan critics are questioning whether he should keep his job.
Rep. Kevin Brady of Texas, the top Republican House member on the Joint Economic Committee, on Thursday was the latest lawmaker to call for Mr. Geithner to resign, saying the nation has lost confidence in the Obama administration's ability to handle the economy.
“For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?” Mr. Brady asked Mr. Geithner during a hearing of the panel.
Mr. Geithner, who was appointed by Mr. Obama and took office in January, shrugged off the request, saying that it was “a great privilege for me to serve this president.”
“I agree with almost nothing in what you said,” the secretary added. “And I think almost nothing of what you said represents a fair and accurate perception of where this economy is today.”
Another Texas Republican, Rep. Michael C. Burgess, went a step further than Mr. Brady in his criticism of the secretary.
“I don't think that you should be fired; I thought you should have never been hired,” Mr. Burgess told Mr. Geithner.
Mr. Burgess said questionable actions in Mr. Geithner's past, such his admission shortly after his nomination that he owed back taxes, made him unsuitable for the job from the beginning.
“It did not leave the American people with a good feeling about the person who was going to be responsible for this economic recovery,” he said.
The GOP rebukes came two days after the release of an embarrassing report by a Treasury Department watchdog that criticized Mr. Geithner's handling last fall of an initial emergency plan to save then-failing American International Group (AIG) while head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
The report, conducted by Neil Barofsky, special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), said that although the Federal Reserve's initial $85 billion credit line to AIG helped the company settle many of its outstanding contracts with outside parties, “its terms were unworkable.”
Even some liberals have been piling on Mr. Geithner. Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Democrat, said flatly on MSNBC on Wednesday that Mr. Geithner should quit.
Mr. DeFazio said that within the House Congressional Progressive Caucus, a group of liberal House Democrats of which he is a member, there is a growing consensus that Mr. Geithner should leave his post.
“The populist caucus is considering questions regarding both him and some other members of the economic team in the near future,” he said.
The congressman also hinted that White House economic adviser Lawrence H. Summers should perhaps be shown the door.
The president “is being failed by his economic team,” Mr. DeFazio told Ed Schultz on MSNBC. “We may have to sacrifice just two more jobs to get millions back for Americans.”
But Mr. Geithner received a generally warm reception from Democrats during Thursday's hearing.
Sen. Bob Casey, Pennsylvania Democrat, told the secretary that he appreciates his public service.
“I voted for your confirmation, and it was the right vote,” he said.
Regarding policy issues, Mr. Geithner told the panel he doesn't support making TARP permanent, vowing to put the program “out of its misery” as soon as possible.
“No one will be happier than I am to see that program terminated and unwound,” he said. “We are moving very aggressively to close down and terminate the programs that defined TARP at the beginning of the crisis.”
He also urged Congress to move quickly in overhauling the nation's badly flawed financial rules, which he says is essential for the health of the economy.
The House this month passed a Wall Street overhaul bill that would allow the government to step in and dismantle a failing company in a way designed not to collapse the economy. The Senate banking committee last week introduced a similar measure.
Posted in politics
Tagged geithner, joint economic committee, lawmaker, litany, obama, republican house member, texas republican
As NewsBusters reported Saturday, President Obama caused a bit of an international incident this weekend when he bowed before Japanese emperor Akihito. Not surprisingly, his adoring fans in the media have done everything in their power to cover for this peculiar demonstration by the most powerful man in the world. With this in mind, the College Republicans at the University of Connecticut have put together a marvelous video to demonstrate how world leaders across the globe have addressed the emperor recently without bowing (video embedded below the fold, h/t Andrew Malcolm):
Now THAT'S entertainment!
In regards to:
New gas stations
Dear CIA:
I found a way to contact you from an acquaintance of mine. I would like to start off by letting you know how irate I am with how the government has been handling gas prices by installing several new gas stations in the southwest near Roswell and along Route 66.
When I was driving on Route 66 I came across several gas stations that had rather cheap prices. But you wanna know what was wrong with them?! They had no gas! That's right, the first one I came up to the attendant, who was strangely dressed in a suit and tie, came up to tell me what I was doing here, as if I was the crazy one. When I responded that I was here for gas, he put his hand up to his ear and told me that it was done. When I gave him this look, all he said was that I thought I asked for gas.
I was enraged and decided that I would just find another gas station. Same story here, except this time, I screamed at the attendant to give me gas. And with that he once again put his hand up to his ear as if I had just said something obscure and out of the ordinary. What in Sam hill is bizarre about asking for gas at a gas station?! This attendant however was a tad more polite than the last and simply told me there was no gas here and I'd have to go elsewhere.
It took me four times of this ridiculous doublespeak, and each time they told me I should stop changing the orders on them. All I wanted was some freakin' gas, is that so hard to ask?! I finally actually got to a gas station that was attended by a normal person, and even though he had rather large eyes and didn't speak English, at least he understood me when I asked for gas.
To conclude this letter, I demand that instead of making more gas stations that you, I don't know, put gas in them?! Novel idea, huh?! I mean what the hell are you using the damn gas station for if you're not using them for gas?! Top secret anti-terrorist research so we can find weapons of mass destruction?! Well let me tell you that you're doing a bang up job in that department, aren't ya?!
Sincerely,
Your Proud American Citizen
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security consolidated 22 agencies and over 200,000 federal employees. (Walker, 2007, 3). The goal of the DHS was to improve communication and streamline coordination amongst domestic security agencies. Its inception constitutes the largest government reorganization since Truman reorganized national security to defend against the Soviet threat. (Ridge, 2002).
It follows logically that an amalgam of 22 agencies creates an atmosphere where tension, infighting and turf-wars are replete. As just one of many examples, a battle ensued between the DHS and the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) over who is to be the overseer of security on U.S. trains. (Mintz, 2005). This policy squabble is said to have slowed progress on the issue for over one year. Similarly, quarrels between DHS and FEMA ensued over the ownership of the National Response Plan. The various intelligence agencies (FBI, NSA, DHS, CIA) claim that their counterparts obfuscate vital information, which detracts from the intended mission of the DHS. Criticisms of this type keep DHS under scrutiny, and make it a prime candidate for reorganization or decentralization.
For all of the criticisms lobbed against the DHS, it does seem to have some successes. The initial goals of the department were to “1) to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, (2) to reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism, and (3) to minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from terrorist attacks that do occur within the United States.” (Carafano and Heyman, 2004, 7). The lack of terrorist attacks on domestic soil since September 11th seems to indicate that this goal has been achieved. In addition, the DHS has been credited with addressing vulnerabilities in the aviation system, forging high-speed communication links with state and local authorities, and effectively sweeping shipping containers for any traces of radiation materials. (Mintz, 2005).
In addition, the DHS creates a means for communication and accountability amongst federal agencies that did not exist before its inception. In June of this year, the Department of Homeland Security launched a five-day national exercise designed to coordinate federal, local, state and private sector partners in an effort to test capabilities against terrorist attacks. (DHS, July, 2009). Exercises of this type are necessary to refine interagency communication and test its readiness. They are also demonstrative of what a centralized agency is capable of providing.
However, even for its successes, that is not to say that the DHS should not be a candidate for reorganization in order to reduce bureaucracy and enhance efficiency. One cannot overlook the fact that infighting, inefficiencies and heavy bureaucracy slow down and detract from the original mission of the DHS. In order to meet this head on, Homeland Security must take stock of its successes and challenges, and reorganize accordingly.
A plan to reorganize DHS seems more feasible and necessary than a call to decentralize it. As the Carafan and Heyman report points out, there needs to be a “capacity to share and compare intelligence regarding terrorism.” (18). Clearly such an undertaking requires some type of oversight. Remanding Homeland Security to its regional components would make it more difficult to connect the dots amongst the various agencies. Dismantling a relatively nascent agency that has the important task of protecting American security lends itself to unwarranted vulnerability.
Even if decentralization does not seem feasible, that is not to say that there are no conditions that support this theory. If the component parts of the behemoth agency are disjointed, it becomes difficult to operate efficiently. A decentralized Department of Homeland Security would allow for lower-level decision-making. State and local agencies do much of their own homeland security legwork, and decentralizing DHS would remove federal guidelines for subnational governments. In addition, a regional decentralization coupled with relocation would move DHS from the already target-heavy Washington, DC. Should DC find itself under attack, it would behoove the DHS to be headquartered elsewhere to eliminate the threat of agency wide annihilation. Also, it can be effectively argued that decentralization may make sense where the missions are tangential. FEMA, for instance, is tasked primarily with responding to national disasters. The primary mission of DHS, on the other hand, is to prevent terrorist attacks. It becomes easy to see why the mission of FEMA may get mired in the counterterrorism priorities of DHS, and may need to be a separate schism.
FEMA was once a cabinet-level post. Because of its non-homeland security mission, it may be necessary for it to return there. Apart from that decentralization, it seems that what the Department of Homeland Security needs is a vast reorganization, where oversight is present, divisions of power and responsibility are clearly delineated, spending is closely monitored and layers of bureaucracy are minimized.
References:
Carafano, James Jay, Ph.D. and David Heyman. (December, 2004). DHS 2.0 Rethinking the Department of Homeland Security. The Heritage Foundation, pp. 1-33. Retrieved from http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/upload/72759_1.pdf.
“DHS Coordinates National Level Exercise to Prevent Terrorist Attacks with Federal, State, Local Tribal, Private Sector, and International Partners.” Press Release, Office of the Press Secretary, July 24, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1248450105741.shtm.
Grunwald, Michael and Susan B. Glasser. (December, 2005). Brown's Turf Wars Sapped FEMA's Strength. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/22/AR2005122202213.html.
Homeland Security Act of 2002. Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 ( Nov. 25, 2002. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/laws/law_regulation_rule_0011.shtm.
Jenkins, Brian Michael. (January, 2007). Basic Principles of Homeland Security. Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Homeland
Security of the House Committee on Appropriations. pp. 1-5. Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/pubs/testimonies/2007/RAND_CT270.pdf.
Mintz, John. (September, 2003). Government's Hobbled Giant. The Washington Post, A01. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36519-2003Sep6.html.
Mintz, John. (February, 2005). Infighting Sighted at Homeland Security: Squabbles Blamed for Reducing Effectiveness. The Washington Post, Page A01. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A55552-2005Feb1?language=printer.
Ridge, Tom. (September, 2002). “Director Ridge Addresses U.S. Conference of Mayors.” Remarks by Homeland Security Advisor Tom Ridge on the Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/speeches/speech_0025.shtm.
Posted in politics
Tagged bowing obama, Japanese emperor Akihito, obama, obama bows to, obama bows to Akihito
Last Thursday there was a rally outside the U.S. Capitol to protest pending health care legislation, featuring the kinds of things we’ve grown accustomed to, including large signs showing piles of bodies at Dachau with the caption “National Socialist Healthcare.” It was grotesque — and it was also ominous. For what we may be seeing is America starting to be Californiafied.
The key thing to understand about that rally is that it wasn’t a fringe event. It was sponsored by the House Republican leadership — in fact, it was officially billed as a G.O.P.press conference. Senior lawmakers were in attendance, and apparently had no problem with the tone of the proceedings.
True, Eric Cantor, the second-ranking House Republican, offered some mild criticism after the fact. But the operative word is “mild.” The signs were “inappropriate,” said his spokesman, and the use of Hitler comparisons by such people as Rush Limbaugh, said Mr. Cantor, “conjures up images that frankly are not, I think, very helpful.”
What all this shows is that the G.O.P. has been taken over by the people it used to exploit.
The state of mind visible at recent right-wing demonstrations is nothing new. Back in 1964 the historian Richard Hofstadter published an essay titled, “The Paranoid Style in American Politics,” which reads as if it were based on today’s headlines: Americans on the far right, he wrote, feel that “America has been largely taken away from them and their kind, though they are determined to try to repossess it and to prevent the final destructive act of subversion.” Sound familiar?
But while the paranoid style isn’t new, its role within the G.O.P. is.
When Hofstadter wrote, the right wing felt dispossessed because it was rejected by both major parties. That changed with the rise of Ronald Reagan: Republican politicians began to win elections in part by catering to the passions of the angry right.
Until recently, however, that catering mostly took the form of empty symbolism. Once elections were won, the issues that fired up the base almost always took a back seat to the economic concerns of the elite. Thus in 2004 George W. Bush ran on antiterrorism and “values,” only to announce, as soon as the election was behind him, that his first priority was changing Social Security.
But something snapped last year. Conservatives had long believed that history was on their side, so the G.O.P. establishment could, in effect, urge hard-right activists to wait just a little longer: once the party consolidated its hold on power, they’d get what they wanted. After the Democratic sweep, however, extremists could no longer be fobbed off with promises of future glory.
Furthermore, the loss of both Congress and the White House left a power vacuum in a party accustomed to top-down management. At this point Newt Gingrich is what passes for a sober, reasonable elder statesman of the G.O.P. And he has no authority: Republican voters ignored his call to support a relatively moderate, electable candidate in New York’s special Congressional election.
Real power in the party rests, instead, with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin (who at this point is more a media figure than a conventional politician). Because these people aren’t interested in actually governing, they feed the base’s frenzy instead of trying to curb or channel it. So all the old restraints are gone.
In the short run, this may help Democrats, as it did in that New York race. But maybe not: elections aren’t necessarily won by the candidate with the most rational argument. They’re often determined, instead, by events and economic conditions.
In fact, the party of Limbaugh and Beck could well make major gains in the midterm elections. The Obama administration’s job-creation efforts have fallen short, so that unemployment is likely to stay disastrously high through next year and beyond. The banker-friendly bailout of Wall Street has angered voters, and might even let Republicans claim the mantle of economic populism. Conservatives may not have better ideas, but voters might support them out of sheer frustration.
And if Tea Party Republicans do win big next year, what has already happened in California could happen at the national level. In California, the G.O.P. has essentially shrunk down to a rump party with no interest in actually governing — but that rump remains big enough to prevent anyone else from dealing with the state’s fiscal crisis. If this happens to America as a whole, as it all too easily could, the country could become effectively ungovernable in the midst of an ongoing economic disaster.
The point is that the takeover of the Republican Party by the irrational right is no laughing matter. Something unprecedented is happening here — and it’s very bad for America.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Two Profiles in Class [Rory Cooper]
This past weekend, Americans were treated to two completely different profiles in class. First there was former president George W. Bush. On Friday night, George and Laura Bush traveled by car to Fort Hood to meet with the devastated families of last week’s tragedy. They specifically asked the base commander not to alert the press, and spent hours simply doing what they could to comfort the grief-stricken families.
The story was eventually uncovered, as these moments tend to be, but clearly President Bush did not see this as a personal opportunity, nor did he want to upstage the current president. The former president saw his interactions with wounded soldiers and their families as private moments.
Twenty-four hours later, President Obama was not at Fort Hood, but rather on Capitol Hill lobbying a private meeting of Democrats, who must not have known his position on health care. Obama told the lawmakers, according to Democratic congressman Earl Blumenauer in the New York Times: “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit [Democratic voters] and it will encourage the extremists.”
Let’s dissect that statement. First, President Obama incorrectly states that conservatives are “anti-government,” which simply is untrue. Conservatives are in favor of the government’s performing its duties efficiently and effectively. Conservatives are not in favor of the government’s running a new national health-care entitlement that will surely fail. (The House passed a bill that costs $2.4 trillion, raises taxes by $700 billion, and massively expands a bankrupt Medicaid program — all while the nation’s unemployment rate stands above 10 percent.)
More disturbing is President Obama’s labeling his opposition as “extremists” and falling just short of using the profane “teabag” epithet that is popular among dismissive liberals. This is simply beneath the office he holds. When tens of thousands of multigenerational families descended onto Capitol Hill last week, they were protesting runaway federal spending and government control. They understood that while reform of our health-care system is necessary, the answer is not to compound the problem while ignoring uninsured Americans. These are not extreme views.
President Obama won a short-lived victory this weekend on health care, but he clearly misread the tea leaves if he believes that conservative Democrats will get more support in their home districts for supporting this disastrous plan. These electoral matters are not helped by the president’s demonization of a respectful and vigilant opposition to this government intrusion into their lives.
While President Bush was at Fort Hood consoling the victims of real radical extremism, President Obama was in Washington calling American families who don’t support his health-care plan “extremists.” A more enlightening profile of the two men could not be found.
Posted in politics
Tagged bush, obama, obama care, obamacare, president bush, president obama
GayPatriot » Carly Fiorina: big government policies to blame for CA’s collapse…
Thank you for submitting this cool story – Trackback from PunditKix…
Trackback by PunditKix — November 28, 2009 @ 2:45 pm – November 28, 2009
Lt. Col. North was opposed not only by the Democrat but also by the other Senator from Virginia…and also by another Republican who ran as an independent… You should add all the facts to your column… Semper Fi, Col. North…
Comment by toes192 — November 28, 2009 @ 3:38 pm – November 28, 2009
Interesting coverage of Carly. I must admit what I’ve seen of Boxer is enough to make me want any candidate besides Boxer. It’s good to see Carly has at least a few good qualities as well. What is her take on gays?
oh and your “fully operational blogosphere” comment a few posts back had “fully operational Battlestation!” ringing in my ears.
Comment by Argent — November 28, 2009 @ 11:08 pm – November 28, 2009
Argent, and I wanted those words to ring in your ears!
So far, Carly has not addressed gays in her campaign, except to say she voted for Prop 8. Her campaign has, however, included this openly gay blogger in a bloggers’ conference call and offered me (without my requesting it) a 10-minute interview.
Given how accessible she’s been in this, the first month, of her campaign, she’ll certainly have a chance to address such issues in the course of the race.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 28, 2009 @ 11:29 pm – November 28, 2009
Is there any realistic chance of California’s citizens ever supplanting Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi? I don’t live on the west coast so I don’t have a collective pulse of how they’re received.
Comment by Sharp Right Turn — November 29, 2009 @ 8:30 pm – November 29, 2009
Sharp Right, we can beat Ma’am, but not Nancy. The mood of the voters is very anti-incumbent. Carly just needs to keep playing offense as she has been doing.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — November 29, 2009 @ 8:36 pm – November 29, 2009
Pelosi is going to be in office for as long as she decides to run. There are that many patently-stupid people and welfare addicts in San Francisco to ensure that one.
That being said, turn a negative into a positive; every single Obama Party representative needs to be called out as her complete and total puppet, supporting every foolish and idiotic thing that she does and says.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 29, 2009 @ 10:29 pm – November 29, 2009
Has anyone noted that Nancy Pelosi has been out there saying the country wants even bigger government and even more deficit spending?
Comment by V the K — November 30, 2009 @ 7:58 am – November 30, 2009