Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer commented extensively on Wednesday night concerning the faux-call to bipartisanship by the Democratic leaders of Congress and the President-elect. He finished by noting that, in reality, the rookie Illinois Senator can pursue his chosen course without any heed of Republican concerns, though not, perhaps, of his own party's Congressional members.
I neglected to mention what Krauthammer tellingly predicted will be the new President-elect's policies.
'Whatever will get him re-elected in 2012.'
Remember, we're talking about an empty slate and inexperienced person who just became our President-elect.
Having no observable convictions or beliefs, it's completely reasonable that, like Bill Clinton, he will do not what he feels is good for the country, but what he believes will secure his re-election.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Charles Krauthammer's Blunt Talk About 'Bi-Partisanship'
Last night on Fox News, Brit Hume's panel discussed the President-elect's likely tack on various issues, once in office.
After everyone else had gushed about Frisco Nan's and the rookie Illinois Senator's palaver about 'bipartisanship,' the dry, unflappable Krauthammer noted that the Democrats had just increased their seats in both Houses, and won the Oval Office.
He rather forcefully said, to paraphrase,
'You don't believe a word of this bipartisanship nonsense. He's going to do whatever he and the Congressional Democrats want because they now have the votes and the White House.'
He's right, of course.
Campaigning to many new, young and otherwise gullible voters, the freshman Senator from Illinois naturally told people what they wanted to hear. To wit,
'Elect me, and I'll work as a bipartisan, ney, postpartisan President. We can do this. Yes we can!'
Sounds promising. But empty, coming from a Senatorial newbie.
I've read and heard all sorts of people gushing in conversation, on blogs and websites how, no matter who you voted for, we all have to give the new President-elect our backing and support. And hope he 'succeeds.'
Even Karl Rove uttered a desire that the President-elect 'succeed.'
But what does this mean? 'Succeed' at what, exactly?
An increasingly socialized nation? More left-leaning policies which smother innovation and risk-taking?
Krauthammer is entirely correct. This newly-elected President isn't going to be compromising anything. Nor engaging in any bipartisan dealings.
In fact, on that subject, Dick Morris appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Factor last night, describing what really happened to Bubba Clinton's promises of bipartisanship when he was elected in 1992.
According to Morris, the Democratic Congressional leadership, then in the majority in both houses, offered Clinton a 'deal he couldn't refuse.'
In exchange for staying within the pocket of legislative initiatives which the Democrats would allow, and having those passed, Bubba was prohibited from crossing the aisle to treat with any Republican Congressional members. Period.
Morris was quite emphatic about this. Congressional Democrats stiff-armed Republicans, through Clinton, and forbid any contact.
Don't expect anything else from the current crop of newly-elected and reinforced Democrats for the next 2 years.
After everyone else had gushed about Frisco Nan's and the rookie Illinois Senator's palaver about 'bipartisanship,' the dry, unflappable Krauthammer noted that the Democrats had just increased their seats in both Houses, and won the Oval Office.
He rather forcefully said, to paraphrase,
'You don't believe a word of this bipartisanship nonsense. He's going to do whatever he and the Congressional Democrats want because they now have the votes and the White House.'
He's right, of course.
Campaigning to many new, young and otherwise gullible voters, the freshman Senator from Illinois naturally told people what they wanted to hear. To wit,
'Elect me, and I'll work as a bipartisan, ney, postpartisan President. We can do this. Yes we can!'
Sounds promising. But empty, coming from a Senatorial newbie.
I've read and heard all sorts of people gushing in conversation, on blogs and websites how, no matter who you voted for, we all have to give the new President-elect our backing and support. And hope he 'succeeds.'
Even Karl Rove uttered a desire that the President-elect 'succeed.'
But what does this mean? 'Succeed' at what, exactly?
An increasingly socialized nation? More left-leaning policies which smother innovation and risk-taking?
Krauthammer is entirely correct. This newly-elected President isn't going to be compromising anything. Nor engaging in any bipartisan dealings.
In fact, on that subject, Dick Morris appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Factor last night, describing what really happened to Bubba Clinton's promises of bipartisanship when he was elected in 1992.
According to Morris, the Democratic Congressional leadership, then in the majority in both houses, offered Clinton a 'deal he couldn't refuse.'
In exchange for staying within the pocket of legislative initiatives which the Democrats would allow, and having those passed, Bubba was prohibited from crossing the aisle to treat with any Republican Congressional members. Period.
Morris was quite emphatic about this. Congressional Democrats stiff-armed Republicans, through Clinton, and forbid any contact.
Don't expect anything else from the current crop of newly-elected and reinforced Democrats for the next 2 years.
A New Low In The Presidency
Thanks to the election of the rookie Illinois Senator on Tuesday, Americans have established a new low for qualifications for our nation's highest office.
Someone told me Tuesday evening that Obama is intelligent. To which I replied that my first Presidential vote was cast for the 'more intelligent' candidate......Jimmy Carter.
He proved to be one of the worst stains on the office in our nations' history.
So much for raw intellect.
Give me some accomplishments every time. Preferably some sort of executive experience of reasonable magnitude and duration.
As if to validate my point, yesterday's big news was that our President-elect is planning to name erstwhile Clinonista Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff.
Emmanuel is one of the most bitterly partisan Representatives in office. He won an Illinois Congressional seat after Bubba left office, so that makes him part of the evolving Chicago Mafia that will now be running our country. When Frisco Nan lets him.
Last night, on Fox News, token black/liberal contributor Juan Williams gave two interesting opinions about the appointment.
First, he said that the black caucus in Congress is already crying foul for Obama passing up the perfect change to name a fellow black to the post.
Second, he rationalized the Emmanuel choice by actually, and, I suspect, accidentally, admitting, to paraphrase Williams,
'Look, Obama is only a two-year Senator and doesn't really know anything about legislation. Emmanuel will be his direct bridge to Nancy Pelosi.'
This is rich, indeed. We are now told the truth- that the President-elect doesn't have any substantial governmental experience at all. Which matches the man's lack of significant life experience, as well.
Instead, a Clinton hold-over will now be running the White House, because its new occupant won't be qualified to deal with Congress on his own.
As I said to an acquaintance, and anyone within earshot, last night,
"This guy is going to make Carter look like a good President by comparison."
And you remember how easily Congress rolled Jimmuh, don't you?
Yes, we've reached a new low in electing Presidents. Now, you don't even need any legitimate, significant life experience.
Just be a member of the right minority, claim to be intelligent with 'ideas for change,' and, oh yes, dare anyone to criticize your lack of qualifications and call them sexist/racist.
Someone told me Tuesday evening that Obama is intelligent. To which I replied that my first Presidential vote was cast for the 'more intelligent' candidate......Jimmy Carter.
He proved to be one of the worst stains on the office in our nations' history.
So much for raw intellect.
Give me some accomplishments every time. Preferably some sort of executive experience of reasonable magnitude and duration.
As if to validate my point, yesterday's big news was that our President-elect is planning to name erstwhile Clinonista Rahm Emmanuel as his chief of staff.
Emmanuel is one of the most bitterly partisan Representatives in office. He won an Illinois Congressional seat after Bubba left office, so that makes him part of the evolving Chicago Mafia that will now be running our country. When Frisco Nan lets him.
Last night, on Fox News, token black/liberal contributor Juan Williams gave two interesting opinions about the appointment.
First, he said that the black caucus in Congress is already crying foul for Obama passing up the perfect change to name a fellow black to the post.
Second, he rationalized the Emmanuel choice by actually, and, I suspect, accidentally, admitting, to paraphrase Williams,
'Look, Obama is only a two-year Senator and doesn't really know anything about legislation. Emmanuel will be his direct bridge to Nancy Pelosi.'
This is rich, indeed. We are now told the truth- that the President-elect doesn't have any substantial governmental experience at all. Which matches the man's lack of significant life experience, as well.
Instead, a Clinton hold-over will now be running the White House, because its new occupant won't be qualified to deal with Congress on his own.
As I said to an acquaintance, and anyone within earshot, last night,
"This guy is going to make Carter look like a good President by comparison."
And you remember how easily Congress rolled Jimmuh, don't you?
Yes, we've reached a new low in electing Presidents. Now, you don't even need any legitimate, significant life experience.
Just be a member of the right minority, claim to be intelligent with 'ideas for change,' and, oh yes, dare anyone to criticize your lack of qualifications and call them sexist/racist.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
McCain's Mistakes
A few days ago, on the eve of yesterday's election, several Fox News commentators- Chris Wallace, Brit Hume and, I think, Fred Barnes or Bill Kristol, discussed what they thought of McCain's campaign.
To a person, they despaired at how badly organized and run McCain's effort had been. With a handful of relevant issues: Obama's kinship with Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers; his socialist comments; his tax/welfare plan, to name a few, McCain had no shortage of targets.
But he never grabbed one or two and relentlessly drove them home. Furthermore, McCain's insistence on behaving as if he were on the Senate floor, displaying a sort of quaint decorum of an earlier era, served him badly.
Forget bogus calls to 'unity.' Presidential politics is always about playing hard and rough. We hear the same tired song about 'taking the high road' every four years. But it's the same result every time- candidates get mean, nasty, personal and untruthful.
The rookie Illinois Senator was no exception.
McCain, in the end, reminded me all too much of Bob Dole, as I first noted in this post, from March, 2007.
In fact, McCain even mouthed the exact phrase, "it's my turn," on Saturday Night Live recently.
Given that, in the words of one pundit this morning, a switch in results from only 40 counties across the US would have made McCain President-elect this morning, the latter's campaign mistakes are really what caused his loss.
In the end, McCain just seemed unable to mount a vigorous, clear, vibrant and coherent message to give voters something to be for, rather than merely be against reasonable fears of Democrat hegemony.
To a person, they despaired at how badly organized and run McCain's effort had been. With a handful of relevant issues: Obama's kinship with Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and Bill Ayers; his socialist comments; his tax/welfare plan, to name a few, McCain had no shortage of targets.
But he never grabbed one or two and relentlessly drove them home. Furthermore, McCain's insistence on behaving as if he were on the Senate floor, displaying a sort of quaint decorum of an earlier era, served him badly.
Forget bogus calls to 'unity.' Presidential politics is always about playing hard and rough. We hear the same tired song about 'taking the high road' every four years. But it's the same result every time- candidates get mean, nasty, personal and untruthful.
The rookie Illinois Senator was no exception.
McCain, in the end, reminded me all too much of Bob Dole, as I first noted in this post, from March, 2007.
In fact, McCain even mouthed the exact phrase, "it's my turn," on Saturday Night Live recently.
Given that, in the words of one pundit this morning, a switch in results from only 40 counties across the US would have made McCain President-elect this morning, the latter's campaign mistakes are really what caused his loss.
In the end, McCain just seemed unable to mount a vigorous, clear, vibrant and coherent message to give voters something to be for, rather than merely be against reasonable fears of Democrat hegemony.
The Con Man
It's a 10PM on Tuesday night as I write this post. Fox News has called Ohio, Iowa and Pennsylvania for the Democratic candidate, thus apparently sealing McCain's fate as the loser in the Presidential contest. Even sources in McCain's campaign now admit there is 'no longer a path' to victory for their candidate.
A few days ago, I caught former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger on Fox News.
With remarkable candor, Eagleburger declared that if the country were to vote the freshman Illinois Senator into office as President, it was electing a "a con man."
So true.
Only last night, I talked with an acquaintance who is a local Republican office holder at the town council level, and a minority. He clearly broke ranks and voted for the Illinois Senator, and, separately, assured me that, if elected, he would govern from the center.
Imagine all the radical left Democrats who will be conned if this is true.
Then again, the rookie Senator's move to the center conned many independents who will be angry if he shows his true liberal stripes and governs with Frisco Nan and Harry Reid.
Either way, the Democrats have offered us an inexperienced, unaccomplished con man for our nation's highest office.
Something we will all come to regret.
A few days ago, I caught former Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger on Fox News.
With remarkable candor, Eagleburger declared that if the country were to vote the freshman Illinois Senator into office as President, it was electing a "a con man."
So true.
Only last night, I talked with an acquaintance who is a local Republican office holder at the town council level, and a minority. He clearly broke ranks and voted for the Illinois Senator, and, separately, assured me that, if elected, he would govern from the center.
Imagine all the radical left Democrats who will be conned if this is true.
Then again, the rookie Senator's move to the center conned many independents who will be angry if he shows his true liberal stripes and governs with Frisco Nan and Harry Reid.
Either way, the Democrats have offered us an inexperienced, unaccomplished con man for our nation's highest office.
Something we will all come to regret.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Separation Of Powers
On the day of an election which may leave both Houses of Congress and the Presidency in the hands of the same party, one has to ask why this may happen?
Since Nixon's administration, most US Presidents have had to deal with at least one House of Congress being under the other party's control.
When it has not been so, unhealthy excesses have occurred. Specifically, Carter presided over what is generally and easily understood to be the single worst administration in modern times. Clintonian gridlock saved us from that President's attempts to move the country far to the left with universal healthcare and even higher taxes.
Republican Congressional self-indulgence doomed their control over that branch during the current President's administration.
Now, we are debating now whether the Democrats will control all three entities, but whether they might gain a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
It's very disconcerting to see such a foolish attitude among Americans. My own worry is that one outcome of this election, the most liberal one, with more than 60 Democratic Senators and the Illinois freshman Senator in the White House, would make FDR's and LBJ's terms look conservative by comparsion.
It might not happen. I pray it does not. Because if it does, I suspect we are all in for a very bad, socialistic turn for our country.
At least, with modern communications, including methods like this blog, the dark period may last only two years, at which time the House could and would revert to the Republicans.
Since Nixon's administration, most US Presidents have had to deal with at least one House of Congress being under the other party's control.
When it has not been so, unhealthy excesses have occurred. Specifically, Carter presided over what is generally and easily understood to be the single worst administration in modern times. Clintonian gridlock saved us from that President's attempts to move the country far to the left with universal healthcare and even higher taxes.
Republican Congressional self-indulgence doomed their control over that branch during the current President's administration.
Now, we are debating now whether the Democrats will control all three entities, but whether they might gain a filibuster-proof Senate majority.
It's very disconcerting to see such a foolish attitude among Americans. My own worry is that one outcome of this election, the most liberal one, with more than 60 Democratic Senators and the Illinois freshman Senator in the White House, would make FDR's and LBJ's terms look conservative by comparsion.
It might not happen. I pray it does not. Because if it does, I suspect we are all in for a very bad, socialistic turn for our country.
At least, with modern communications, including methods like this blog, the dark period may last only two years, at which time the House could and would revert to the Republicans.
Voter Turnout
This election cycle has seen an unprecedented focus on voter turnout. I thought each of the prior cycles which I can recall had already ploughed this furrow. But apparently not to the extent of this one.
Of course, illegal activities by Acorn, and the infamous 'motor voter' laws have made registration easy and, thus, much more prone to fraud.
But even if these changes had not occurred, the entire question of whether it's really a good thing to have higher voter turnout needs to be asked.
This is probably a taboo subject.
In prior election years for the past decade, I recall the Wall Street Journal publishing, close to each quadrennial election date in November, an editorial written by one particular high school teacher. His point was always the same, regardless of in which year he wrote his piece: there are some Americans whom you really don't want in that polling booth.
By describing the incredibly bad sense of both American history and current world events among his charges, the editorialist reminded us of the danger of too many ill-informed and bad-thinking people voting for our governing officials.
Even now, living amidst communities of fairly well-educated and well-read Americans, I am astonished by the lack of accurate knowledge of various financial, fiscal and current event topics by many of my acquaintances. I shudder to think of what happens when even less-well-educated people troop to the polls and cancel the votes of better-informed Americans.
Despite being a conservative, I'm not advocating that only people who may, statistically-speaking, tend to vote liberal/Democratic, be disenfranchised.
Rather, I'm disturbed by the personality cults and thoughtless desires for 'change.'
For example, my squash partner last night expressed that oft-heard appetite for 'some change.' When I noted that Bush wasn't running, so we're going to have 'change,' no matter who wins, he grimaced.
He couldn't identify one accomplishment of the rookie Senator from Illinois. Not one.
I guess my point is that while it's in each party's interest to identify and mobilize all their registered voters, somehow I feel that this leads to bad election results.
Wouldn't it be much better to simply rely on those people sufficiently engaged and aware of the importance of their vote, without being either cajoled, paid or otherwise driven- sometimes literally- to vote? It's simply hard to believe those sorts of voters have given careful thought to the effect of each of their votes on today's ballot.
Instead, each party is simply cramming as many of its registered voters, thoughtful or not, into the polls.
No wonder so many politicians believe we are a politically divided nation. They are abetting this trend by pushing party-only voting on the part of many otherwise-disinterested adults.
It almost certainly puts me in a minority, but I'd actually prefer a lighter voter turnout. Both this year, and in most election years. Give me a thoughtful, if smaller core of voters determining the direction of my country, rather than a shotgun blast of newly-registered, uninformed and illogical voters swamping those who actually pay attention to the national agenda month in, month out, every year.
Of course, illegal activities by Acorn, and the infamous 'motor voter' laws have made registration easy and, thus, much more prone to fraud.
But even if these changes had not occurred, the entire question of whether it's really a good thing to have higher voter turnout needs to be asked.
This is probably a taboo subject.
In prior election years for the past decade, I recall the Wall Street Journal publishing, close to each quadrennial election date in November, an editorial written by one particular high school teacher. His point was always the same, regardless of in which year he wrote his piece: there are some Americans whom you really don't want in that polling booth.
By describing the incredibly bad sense of both American history and current world events among his charges, the editorialist reminded us of the danger of too many ill-informed and bad-thinking people voting for our governing officials.
Even now, living amidst communities of fairly well-educated and well-read Americans, I am astonished by the lack of accurate knowledge of various financial, fiscal and current event topics by many of my acquaintances. I shudder to think of what happens when even less-well-educated people troop to the polls and cancel the votes of better-informed Americans.
Despite being a conservative, I'm not advocating that only people who may, statistically-speaking, tend to vote liberal/Democratic, be disenfranchised.
Rather, I'm disturbed by the personality cults and thoughtless desires for 'change.'
For example, my squash partner last night expressed that oft-heard appetite for 'some change.' When I noted that Bush wasn't running, so we're going to have 'change,' no matter who wins, he grimaced.
He couldn't identify one accomplishment of the rookie Senator from Illinois. Not one.
I guess my point is that while it's in each party's interest to identify and mobilize all their registered voters, somehow I feel that this leads to bad election results.
Wouldn't it be much better to simply rely on those people sufficiently engaged and aware of the importance of their vote, without being either cajoled, paid or otherwise driven- sometimes literally- to vote? It's simply hard to believe those sorts of voters have given careful thought to the effect of each of their votes on today's ballot.
Instead, each party is simply cramming as many of its registered voters, thoughtful or not, into the polls.
No wonder so many politicians believe we are a politically divided nation. They are abetting this trend by pushing party-only voting on the part of many otherwise-disinterested adults.
It almost certainly puts me in a minority, but I'd actually prefer a lighter voter turnout. Both this year, and in most election years. Give me a thoughtful, if smaller core of voters determining the direction of my country, rather than a shotgun blast of newly-registered, uninformed and illogical voters swamping those who actually pay attention to the national agenda month in, month out, every year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
