Last week, I wrote my own opinion regarding Colin Powell's recent remarks regarding the GOP's current state.
Along with his comments on releasing CIA interrogation pictures, former VP Dick Cheney also weighed in on Powell's comments. His sentiments echoed my own.
Cheney said he didn't know Powell was even still a Republican, since he'd so explicitly backed Wonderboy in the last election.
I've always liked Cheney for his candor, and this time is no exception. 1991 was a long time ago, and Cheney doesn't let his work with Powell back then, during the fight for Kuwait, cloud his current response to Powell's actions and comments.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Is Dick Cheney Still VP?
Wow, that was quick!
Dick Cheney gives a couple of interviews, publicizing his views on the inappropriateness of releasing photographs from CIA files, and, presto, Wonderboy relents.
Is Joe Biden even in this administration?
Despite many people feeling he was out of line, as a former VP, Cheney's comments about the threat to national security evidently shoved the First Rookie back into line. Perhaps Cheney's drip feed of remarks finally percolated that thick liberal skull of the new president.
So, once again, Wonderboy changed direction and followed his predecessor's policies on anti-terrorism strategies.
If only he could somehow leave Guantanamo open. I'll be he wishes he'd kept his mouth shut about that now, don't you?
Dick Cheney gives a couple of interviews, publicizing his views on the inappropriateness of releasing photographs from CIA files, and, presto, Wonderboy relents.
Is Joe Biden even in this administration?
Despite many people feeling he was out of line, as a former VP, Cheney's comments about the threat to national security evidently shoved the First Rookie back into line. Perhaps Cheney's drip feed of remarks finally percolated that thick liberal skull of the new president.
So, once again, Wonderboy changed direction and followed his predecessor's policies on anti-terrorism strategies.
If only he could somehow leave Guantanamo open. I'll be he wishes he'd kept his mouth shut about that now, don't you?
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Promises, Promises.....Unaffordable Promises
I haven't located the video clip on YouTube yet, but bumbling VP Joe Biden made an unbelievable promise on camera to a group of school kids the other day. The clip aired on Bill O'Reilly's Fox News channel program last night. As soon as I locate it, I'll embed it or paste the link into a post.
Biden was captured live promising that Wonderboy and he will make sure that every child who wants to, goes to college. And if their family can't afford the expenses, the federal government will pay for it.
Not loan them money. Not offer grants.
No, the government will just pick up the tab. Period.
How in the world can US taxpayers afford this promise?
Biden was captured live promising that Wonderboy and he will make sure that every child who wants to, goes to college. And if their family can't afford the expenses, the federal government will pay for it.
Not loan them money. Not offer grants.
No, the government will just pick up the tab. Period.
How in the world can US taxpayers afford this promise?
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Those Wacky Kennedy Boys
I mentioned in this recent post on my companion business blog that I subscribe to the uber-liberally biased Outside Magazine.
In another recent issue of the periodical, I found a story about the current situation in the dictatorship of Venezuela. The picture painted by the article's author was truly horrendous; rampant thievery, kidnapping, drugging of tourists to rob them, advice to avoid any unknown taxi drivers.
In part of the story, the writer related how his taxi driver/guide bemoaned how Chavez parades on the world stage as an environmentalist, yet, at home, prices gasoline at the equivalent of US $.40/gallon. This subsidy has brought incredible congestion to the streets of Venezuela's major cities.
This got me thinking about those wacky Kennedy boys, Joe and Bobby.
Joe is that annoying do-gooder with the commercials showing him in a utility suit, heating oil hose nozzle in hand, dispensing free, Venezuelan-sourced fuel to American poor. Joe decries all things conservative, ignores how some of these people brought about their own evictions or financial problems, alleges that our government has failed them by failing to provide them with heating oil, then gets to work with his fuel truck.
Thus, Joe is supporting Hugo Chavez' wanton environmental destruction via artificially cheap gasoline prices.
But then we have Bobby. Well, Bobby, Jr., I guess. Except the original Bobby is dead, so Bobby, Jr. could be just plain old Bobby.
Anyway, I digress.
Bobby is often seen arguing for green energy grids, non-carbon energy sources, etc. The usually greenie heaven on earth, with no thought to cost or jobs and industrial electrical or locomotive power lost.
So, here's my question.
Shouldn't Joe and Bobby get their stories straight? Their combined acts together?
One of them, Joe, is ought dispensing free, carbon-based fuel, on behalf of a banana republic dictator who is polluting the world thought overly-subsidized fuel prices.
The other is railing against carbon economies.
Shouldn't they have just one family story line?
Or are they following their grandfather Joe's financial instincts, and providing a sort of "Kennedy energy hedge," by being on both sides of the same environmental issue at once?
Ah, those wacky Kennedy boys.
Maybe their Uncle Teddy should take them for a ride in his car out Edgartown way, to solve this Kennedy political split?
With his brain cancer, do you think he'll even know he's underwater when they go off the bridge this time?
In another recent issue of the periodical, I found a story about the current situation in the dictatorship of Venezuela. The picture painted by the article's author was truly horrendous; rampant thievery, kidnapping, drugging of tourists to rob them, advice to avoid any unknown taxi drivers.
In part of the story, the writer related how his taxi driver/guide bemoaned how Chavez parades on the world stage as an environmentalist, yet, at home, prices gasoline at the equivalent of US $.40/gallon. This subsidy has brought incredible congestion to the streets of Venezuela's major cities.
This got me thinking about those wacky Kennedy boys, Joe and Bobby.
Joe is that annoying do-gooder with the commercials showing him in a utility suit, heating oil hose nozzle in hand, dispensing free, Venezuelan-sourced fuel to American poor. Joe decries all things conservative, ignores how some of these people brought about their own evictions or financial problems, alleges that our government has failed them by failing to provide them with heating oil, then gets to work with his fuel truck.
Thus, Joe is supporting Hugo Chavez' wanton environmental destruction via artificially cheap gasoline prices.
But then we have Bobby. Well, Bobby, Jr., I guess. Except the original Bobby is dead, so Bobby, Jr. could be just plain old Bobby.
Anyway, I digress.
Bobby is often seen arguing for green energy grids, non-carbon energy sources, etc. The usually greenie heaven on earth, with no thought to cost or jobs and industrial electrical or locomotive power lost.
So, here's my question.
Shouldn't Joe and Bobby get their stories straight? Their combined acts together?
One of them, Joe, is ought dispensing free, carbon-based fuel, on behalf of a banana republic dictator who is polluting the world thought overly-subsidized fuel prices.
The other is railing against carbon economies.
Shouldn't they have just one family story line?
Or are they following their grandfather Joe's financial instincts, and providing a sort of "Kennedy energy hedge," by being on both sides of the same environmental issue at once?
Ah, those wacky Kennedy boys.
Maybe their Uncle Teddy should take them for a ride in his car out Edgartown way, to solve this Kennedy political split?
With his brain cancer, do you think he'll even know he's underwater when they go off the bridge this time?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Regarding Jack Kemp
Jack Kemp's recent death has unleashed a torrent of punditry about what he did, or did not, stand for. Many in the media knew him, both as a Congressman, VP candidate, and HUD Secretary.
Kemp's explicit and solid pro-growth economic credentials typically caused him to be labeled as a conservative. Of course, his stance on social issues was more mainstream.
However, with his passing, many, like ditzy Wall Street Journal weekend columnist Peggy Noonan, are plunging, yet again, into diatribes about how the GOP needs to be more centrist and mainstream. This time, they bemoan the party's reaction to Arlen Specter's job-protection-induced switch to the Democrats, and claim that Kemp's legacy should be a bigger tent for the Republican party.
As far as I know, Kemp was on a losing GOP ticket with Bob Dole, the latter no solid conservative, either. I'm sure Jack Kemp was a good Representative for his district in Buffalo. The tax cut legislation that bore his name certainly was good for the country.
But I never actually heard Kemp scold the GOP for being too doctrinaire. If anything, I'd say the story about his celebratory letters to his grandchildren on Wonderboy's election indicates he was fooled by the candidate's attempts to portray himself as centrist, rather than the extreme liberal he actually is, and governs as.
Jack Kemp was a valuable member of the GOP for many years. But I don't think that means we should automatically attribute things to him that he didn't necessarily say, nor give all of his opinions the same weight as those of successful GOP presidential candidates.
Kemp's explicit and solid pro-growth economic credentials typically caused him to be labeled as a conservative. Of course, his stance on social issues was more mainstream.
However, with his passing, many, like ditzy Wall Street Journal weekend columnist Peggy Noonan, are plunging, yet again, into diatribes about how the GOP needs to be more centrist and mainstream. This time, they bemoan the party's reaction to Arlen Specter's job-protection-induced switch to the Democrats, and claim that Kemp's legacy should be a bigger tent for the Republican party.
As far as I know, Kemp was on a losing GOP ticket with Bob Dole, the latter no solid conservative, either. I'm sure Jack Kemp was a good Representative for his district in Buffalo. The tax cut legislation that bore his name certainly was good for the country.
But I never actually heard Kemp scold the GOP for being too doctrinaire. If anything, I'd say the story about his celebratory letters to his grandchildren on Wonderboy's election indicates he was fooled by the candidate's attempts to portray himself as centrist, rather than the extreme liberal he actually is, and governs as.
Jack Kemp was a valuable member of the GOP for many years. But I don't think that means we should automatically attribute things to him that he didn't necessarily say, nor give all of his opinions the same weight as those of successful GOP presidential candidates.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Finally- Grounds For Impeachment
Not that I think it will happen, of course, with a Democratic majority in both houses of Congress. But this past week, Wonderboy finally provided the nation with an unequivocal basis to impeach him. In fact, so blatant was it that it merited an editorial in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.
The issue, of course, is our First Rookie's call for the Supreme Court judge to replace retiring Souter to be 'empathetic,' and to treat each case on the basis of its particular facts, rather than the law.
I wrote in this recent post about Constitutional grounds on which one can find fault with Wonderboy's recent actions,
"Stein noted that the underlying problem with this administration, the prior one, and the Congress, is its unconstitutional behavior.
The takings of AIG, summary firing of GM's CEO, without being a shareholder, and forcible injection of government into our large banks, are all basically violations of the Constitution."
Now, David Lewis Shaefer, a political science professor at Holy Cross, writes,
"The price of what Mr. Obama calls judicial pragmatism or empathy is a willingness to disregard the rule of law, the democratic process, and the Constitutional text in favor of judges' own idiosyncratic notions of fairness. And that is hard to square with the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws and Constitution are faithfully executed."
I am reminded, in all of this, of the Bork confirmation hearings. Teddy Kennedy kept spewing about Bork not having considered the individual situation of some plaintiff in a case involving a trucking company and a union.
Bork attempted to educate the Massachusetts Senator regarding the rules governing how the case could be considered by the appellate court, on which Bork sat at the time. The esteemed jurist noted that only points of law which were being appealed were basis for consideration, and nothing else. That's the law.
Kennedy would have none of it, insisting Bork was a cold-hearted, nasty man. Lacking in 'empathy,' as it were.
Bork was right then, as Schaefer is now.
Only this time, we can actually use the sitting president's own words against him. He has plainly indicated that he will seek to choose and nominate a Supreme Court justice on the basis of their likelihood to ignore law, and use 'empathy,' instead, to decide cases.
This is a subversion of his oath of office, in that he will be explicitly trying to undermine our Constitution, an oath to uphold which he took upon entering his current office.
It doesn't get much clearer than this. If only we had a Congress that would respect and enforce the Constitution.
The issue, of course, is our First Rookie's call for the Supreme Court judge to replace retiring Souter to be 'empathetic,' and to treat each case on the basis of its particular facts, rather than the law.
I wrote in this recent post about Constitutional grounds on which one can find fault with Wonderboy's recent actions,
"Stein noted that the underlying problem with this administration, the prior one, and the Congress, is its unconstitutional behavior.
The takings of AIG, summary firing of GM's CEO, without being a shareholder, and forcible injection of government into our large banks, are all basically violations of the Constitution."
Now, David Lewis Shaefer, a political science professor at Holy Cross, writes,
"The price of what Mr. Obama calls judicial pragmatism or empathy is a willingness to disregard the rule of law, the democratic process, and the Constitutional text in favor of judges' own idiosyncratic notions of fairness. And that is hard to square with the president's constitutional duty to take care that the laws and Constitution are faithfully executed."
I am reminded, in all of this, of the Bork confirmation hearings. Teddy Kennedy kept spewing about Bork not having considered the individual situation of some plaintiff in a case involving a trucking company and a union.
Bork attempted to educate the Massachusetts Senator regarding the rules governing how the case could be considered by the appellate court, on which Bork sat at the time. The esteemed jurist noted that only points of law which were being appealed were basis for consideration, and nothing else. That's the law.
Kennedy would have none of it, insisting Bork was a cold-hearted, nasty man. Lacking in 'empathy,' as it were.
Bork was right then, as Schaefer is now.
Only this time, we can actually use the sitting president's own words against him. He has plainly indicated that he will seek to choose and nominate a Supreme Court justice on the basis of their likelihood to ignore law, and use 'empathy,' instead, to decide cases.
This is a subversion of his oath of office, in that he will be explicitly trying to undermine our Constitution, an oath to uphold which he took upon entering his current office.
It doesn't get much clearer than this. If only we had a Congress that would respect and enforce the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
