OK, yes, it was supremely gratifying to see this happen. As a conservative, could I wish for a more public display of liberal Democratic dysfunctionality?
David Geffen switches alliances and backs Obama in his first major fundraiser. The Hollywood glitterati set turns out, virtually guaranteeing, as usual, more solid Midwest support for whomever opposes Obama. But then it gets really brutal.
Geffen, according to one paper,
"Once a top donor to former president Bill Clinton and a favoured guest in the Lincoln bedroom, (Geffen) then trashed the couple in a New York Times interview, branding the former president "reckless" and calling the senator dishonest and "an incredibly polarizing figure." "
It goes on to say that Hillary and Obama personally remained cool, but their minions immediately began lobbing grenades at each other in the media. But then that changed.
This piece, here, recounts some of Obama's recent barbs directed at Hillary.
Mind you, aside from the money and glamor, it's not actually clear how much value Hollywood will be to the eventual Democratic nominee for President. It may have helped Clinton, but, then again, it may not have. He was running against a tired George Bush, Sr., and a luckless and uninspiring Bob Dole. Gore and Kerry went down in flames with the ultra-left Hollywood crowd misbehaving on their behalf. If I were Obama or Hillary, I'd think twice before accepting that kind of "help."
Goodbye, possible Hillary-Obama dream minority ticket in November, 2008. Goodbye, Hillary trying to edge too far to the center on Iraq and national defense. Now, she'll be attempting to paint herself more left/liberal on Iraq, even as that opens the center for McCain in the general election.
Yes, the Chinese have it right..... to the confusion of our enemies.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Monday, February 19, 2007
Who Wants To Rule The World? Or At Least Organize It?
I was chatting recently with an online acquaintance from Greece.
She can't understand why the US cares about Iraq or Iran...or anywhere else, for that matter. My pointing to the religious war going on, whose earlier shots were fired in lower Manhattan, made no impact on her whatsoever.
Then I realized something- most countries are doing well to just survive. They are smallish, without significant power, and literally cannot imagine trying to influence global conditions.
So they suspect the US when it does. When I suggested we just want peace, in order to have the maximum economic trade and prosperity worldwide, she did not believe me. This stunned me.
It seems that, like during the Pax Romana, while, on one hand, the smaller societies enjoy economic benefits, they simply distrust the country strong enough to provide the 'peace.'
Perhaps my Greek acquaintance is projecting, seeing as how all the other, prior global dominators were from Europe, and have had acquisitive histories. Whereas the US tends to just want to trade and open up markets. Consider the post-WWII environment, when the US spent millions to resuscitate Europe, Greece, et. al., in order to keep Communism at bay, and rebuild markets and societies.
When the rest of the world has this attitude, nothing we do or say will ever satisfy them, other than becoming totally isolationist. I think this includes any of the liberal Democrats who like to blame other countries' attitudes toward the US on conservatives, and our current President. Short of totally throwing ourselves on the UN for guidance, I doubt that the other larger countries will ever be satisfied with US behavior for very long. They love us when we protect their citizens and energy sources, then they forget all about that and rail at our strength and leadership
We simply can't afford to do let the fears of others, or their own isolationism, govern our need to enforce a global peace that promotes worldwide trade, prosperity, and freedom.
She can't understand why the US cares about Iraq or Iran...or anywhere else, for that matter. My pointing to the religious war going on, whose earlier shots were fired in lower Manhattan, made no impact on her whatsoever.
Then I realized something- most countries are doing well to just survive. They are smallish, without significant power, and literally cannot imagine trying to influence global conditions.
So they suspect the US when it does. When I suggested we just want peace, in order to have the maximum economic trade and prosperity worldwide, she did not believe me. This stunned me.
It seems that, like during the Pax Romana, while, on one hand, the smaller societies enjoy economic benefits, they simply distrust the country strong enough to provide the 'peace.'
Perhaps my Greek acquaintance is projecting, seeing as how all the other, prior global dominators were from Europe, and have had acquisitive histories. Whereas the US tends to just want to trade and open up markets. Consider the post-WWII environment, when the US spent millions to resuscitate Europe, Greece, et. al., in order to keep Communism at bay, and rebuild markets and societies.
When the rest of the world has this attitude, nothing we do or say will ever satisfy them, other than becoming totally isolationist. I think this includes any of the liberal Democrats who like to blame other countries' attitudes toward the US on conservatives, and our current President. Short of totally throwing ourselves on the UN for guidance, I doubt that the other larger countries will ever be satisfied with US behavior for very long. They love us when we protect their citizens and energy sources, then they forget all about that and rail at our strength and leadership
We simply can't afford to do let the fears of others, or their own isolationism, govern our need to enforce a global peace that promotes worldwide trade, prosperity, and freedom.
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Carper's Ill-Informed Lament
Last week saw Tom Carper, the newly-elected Democratic Senator from Delaware, subject Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to a long-winded monologue on the state of the Delaware auto worker.
Among Carper's more ill-informed contentions were that the US needs to retain more manufacturing jobs, and especially more auto manufacturing jobs. He babbled on ad nauseum, "carping" about how well his Delaware auto workers work, and what high quality vehicles they produce. Then he began the sob story about Daimler planning to idle or close those plants in his state.
It's a shame when elected officials like Senators, who can really affect the economy, have absolutely no economic sense whatsoever.
Does anyone really believe that we need or want more semi-skilled auto assembly work, rather than knowledge-oriented jobs? If Carper really wants Delaware's residents to have higher incomes, how about accepting the decline of auto production in this country, and shifting his constituents, now, to higher-paying jobs in growth industries. Maybe even trying to attract said industries?
What a concept.
Among Carper's more ill-informed contentions were that the US needs to retain more manufacturing jobs, and especially more auto manufacturing jobs. He babbled on ad nauseum, "carping" about how well his Delaware auto workers work, and what high quality vehicles they produce. Then he began the sob story about Daimler planning to idle or close those plants in his state.
It's a shame when elected officials like Senators, who can really affect the economy, have absolutely no economic sense whatsoever.
Does anyone really believe that we need or want more semi-skilled auto assembly work, rather than knowledge-oriented jobs? If Carper really wants Delaware's residents to have higher incomes, how about accepting the decline of auto production in this country, and shifting his constituents, now, to higher-paying jobs in growth industries. Maybe even trying to attract said industries?
What a concept.
The US House of Representatives' Non-Binding Surrender...er...Resolution
Well, 'Frisco Nan has done it again. Conservatives could never convince voters that the Democrats, in the majority, could behave as unpatriotically and spinelessly as Nan has demonstrated that they can.
With this week's 'non-binding resolution,' or, shall we say, surrender, on Iraq, the House Democrats (and a few fellow gutless Republicans who should be turned out in 2008), have shown themselves to be totally lacking in the courage of their convictions.
By the way, I caught a few minutes of some discussion of this on one cable program- either Kudlow, O'Reilly, or Hannity & Colmes- and as a conservative guest kept calling it "surrender," a Democratic strategist guest furiously screamed that it was no such thing. Guess you know when you've hit home, eh?
By making the resolution non-binding, they hope, of course, to have it both ways. Vote down further activities in Iraq calculated to win, but not actually force the issue and take responsibility.
The Senate version of this resolution failed on Friday.
Personally, I think this is an ideal counterpoint for conservatives who appreciate Bush's steadfast leadership on the issue.
For instance, when the Democrats complained that the war wasn't going well, Bush switched tactics and leadership. Now that Casey, whose strategy they say failed, is out, the Democrats are quoting him left, right and center to allege that Bush is wrong for now fixing what was wrong before. Petraeus is seen as catering to Bush's whims, while Casey is now lionized by the Democrats as a sort of victim of Bush's tyrannical personality.
Really, you can't win either way with the obstructionist Democratic Congress. Don't listen to them, and you are inflexible. Respond to them, and those who delivered failure are suddenly dethroned heroes and experts, while the newly-appointed commanders must be political patsies.
This is going to seriously hurt all the Democrats come November, 2008. The House will probably lose a lot of seats over this- more than enough to offset the ouster of the Republican turncoats. The Senate, from which most of the Democratic Presidential contenders hail, will have this stuck in their throats, no matter what the outcome in Iraq. If they move to hamper funding, it will be doubly bad for them. A victory, or improving situation, will show them to be cowards. A worsening situation will make them liable for the defeat. Just like ....ah.....yes, Vietnam!
There's that old aphorism again, that from which you do not learn, you are destined to repeat. And the Democratic liberals are about to repeat their failure in Vietnam, only in Iraq this time.
With this week's 'non-binding resolution,' or, shall we say, surrender, on Iraq, the House Democrats (and a few fellow gutless Republicans who should be turned out in 2008), have shown themselves to be totally lacking in the courage of their convictions.
By the way, I caught a few minutes of some discussion of this on one cable program- either Kudlow, O'Reilly, or Hannity & Colmes- and as a conservative guest kept calling it "surrender," a Democratic strategist guest furiously screamed that it was no such thing. Guess you know when you've hit home, eh?
By making the resolution non-binding, they hope, of course, to have it both ways. Vote down further activities in Iraq calculated to win, but not actually force the issue and take responsibility.
The Senate version of this resolution failed on Friday.
Personally, I think this is an ideal counterpoint for conservatives who appreciate Bush's steadfast leadership on the issue.
For instance, when the Democrats complained that the war wasn't going well, Bush switched tactics and leadership. Now that Casey, whose strategy they say failed, is out, the Democrats are quoting him left, right and center to allege that Bush is wrong for now fixing what was wrong before. Petraeus is seen as catering to Bush's whims, while Casey is now lionized by the Democrats as a sort of victim of Bush's tyrannical personality.
Really, you can't win either way with the obstructionist Democratic Congress. Don't listen to them, and you are inflexible. Respond to them, and those who delivered failure are suddenly dethroned heroes and experts, while the newly-appointed commanders must be political patsies.
This is going to seriously hurt all the Democrats come November, 2008. The House will probably lose a lot of seats over this- more than enough to offset the ouster of the Republican turncoats. The Senate, from which most of the Democratic Presidential contenders hail, will have this stuck in their throats, no matter what the outcome in Iraq. If they move to hamper funding, it will be doubly bad for them. A victory, or improving situation, will show them to be cowards. A worsening situation will make them liable for the defeat. Just like ....ah.....yes, Vietnam!
There's that old aphorism again, that from which you do not learn, you are destined to repeat. And the Democratic liberals are about to repeat their failure in Vietnam, only in Iraq this time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
