Another One of Wonderboy's Failed Economic Team Departs

Larry Summers announced his resignation from Wonderboy's economic team on Tuesday evening.

Coming after the departures of budget chief Peter Orzag and economic adviser Christine Romer, Summers' departure pretty clearly signals that even Wonderboy realizes, if only privately, that his team has propagated an economic disaster.

Of course, every pundit in sight, including even conservative Larry Lindsay, spun Summers' resignation as natural, expected, completely normal, etc. I guess it's the usual public ass kissing so that Summers won't be angry with anyone, lest they need to be on good terms with him in the future for business.

Despite all the protestations that these jobs are so grueling and, thus, everyone wants to leave in two years, you really have to wonder. Summers apparently loses tenure at Harvard if he's not back by January.

And, if the team were doing so well, why wouldn't these people simply move into new administration jobs, rather than fleeing the (sinking?) ship?

And what happened to be Summers replacing Geithner, or becoming Fed Chairman? Surely Wonderboy doesn't want to lose such a proven, excellent economic aide?

And why is it that the prior, published work of both Romer and Summers contradicts their statements while members of Wonderboy's economic team? Maybe Paul Krugman should have had either Summers' or Romer's job in the first place. Then, again, if he had, who would have been on the outside, writing purportedly-objective editorials favoring the administration's economic actions, when not complaining that they weren't liberal enough?

John Harwood's Lies on CNBC

This morning, on CNBC, I watched John Harwood lie about the newly-publish Republican Congressional Pledge.

In discussing the Pledge, and its companion itemized legislation, Harwood dismissed it as just a rehash of old GOP bills.

But Harwood has spent the last year and a half, like most mainstream, and thus, liberal media mouthpieces, describing the Republicans as "the party of NO," with no ideas of their own.

Which is it, John?

Harwood cleverly managed to avoid disclosing any of the details. See, back when they were introduced, Harwood would ignore them, claiming the Republicans had no 'new ideas.'

Now that they are reorganized into a framework as supporting items for the GOP Congressional Pledge, Harwood avoids the details by claiming they are 'nothing new.'

Pretty tricky, eh?

So much for honesty and truth in reporting from major US media outlets.

Carly Fiorina, Lucent & The California Senate Election

I get a huge number of hits on my first two Carly Fiorina-related posts concerning her past at Lucent.

At the time that I wrote them, Fiorina was locked in a death struggle for the GOP Senate nomination in California. I thought it worthwhile to remind Republican voters just how thin is the corporate "success" story on which all of Fiorina's appeal had been based.

But, for better or for worse, Carly won that primary. Yet, the hits keep on coming to those posts.

So let me state, for what it's worth, unequivocally that if I were a California resident/voter choosing between Fiorina and Boxer in the upcoming election, I'd vote for Carly.

Despite her dubious corporate achievements, and unprovable but suspect involvement in the Lucent sales forecasting caper, those are now moot points.

You have to ask yourself which candidate will do a better job cutting government spending and scope as the next California Senator. And that's indisputably going to be Fiorina.

You can worry in six years about her entrenchment, abuse of power, etc. But, in the current environment, if Christine O'Donnell, with fewer life accomplishments than Carly, can run as the GOP Senate candidate in Delaware, why not elect Fiorina over Boxer in California?

Liberal Bias By Panelist On Fox News

On Monday evening, Brett Baier's evening news and analysis program featured a liberal Washington print journalist on his panel discussing various political events. I don't recall the woman's name, but I hadn't seen her on the panel before, the usual liberals being either that woman from NPR or A B Stoddard.

The subject in question was Christine O'Donnell's emerging quirks as the GOP Senatorial candidate in Delaware.

The O'Donnell story making the rounds this week in the media is about witchcraft. However, in a video clip, O'Donnell was shown pointing out that her 'interest' in witchcraft was while she was in high school. And that, if it were working, she'd have Karl Rove out on the campaign trail with her. Funny stuff.

Conservative lion Charles Krauthammer gave O'Donnell high marks for humorously disarming the charge.

The liberal woman, however, wouldn't let go of it, pronouncing O'Donnell too weird and possessing too many irregularities to satisfy voters.

Brett Baier than brought up some wacky things in O'Donnell's opponent's, Chris Coons' past. To this, the liberal woman journalist now said something to the effect of,

'Well, any candidate will have a few skeletons in their closet.'

In other words, any blemish on O'Donnell's past is reason to vote against her, but anything in Coons' past is acceptable as just politics and human nature.

Can we say 'liberal double standard?'

The nice, useful characteristic of Fox News is that the liberal woman's obvious hypocrisy was clearly evident, in comparison to the conservatives, and, thus, needed no further highlighting.

Turncoat Democratic Lobbyist Dick Gephardt

The Wall Street Journal ran an article earlier this week concerning Chinese telecom vendor Huawei Technologies.

At issue is the alleged connections Huawei may have with the Chinese military. It goes without saying that it would be a mistake to allow a telecom provider from a potential enemy country, with ties to that nation's military, to sell equipment into the US telecom networks.

To overcome this impression, Huawei has recruited the usual cast of US lobbyists with connections into the political arena.

To me, most notable among these is former Democratic House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt.

Whether Huawei has connections to the Chinese military is, in Gephardt's case, beside the point. Instead, consider that he was a rabid unionist when he was a Representative and Minority Leader.

So how can a staunch American union apologist now lobby for a foreign firm? Isn't it likely that Huawei's success will mean fewer American jobs and more Chinese ones?

Isn't this about the ultimate in whorish, hypocritical behavior by a one-time US elected official?

I guess so much for deeply-held convictions, beliefs and values by Dick Gephardt. Instead, he's as shallow and mercenary as they come.

Wonderboy's Illegal Appointment of Elizabeth Warren

For a president who promised the most transparent administration in history, the establishment of the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and appointment of Harvard professor, lawyer and scold Elizabeth Warren provide evidence that Wonderboy's promise was and continues to be a lie.

The Wall Street Journal's editorial on the subject in this past weekend's edition, Elizabeth III, makes this clear.

Here's how the new bureaucracy has been situation to avoid, at least in the administration's opinion, the necessity of having Warren nominated and confirmed to head it.

The bureau is officially organized to report to the Treasury Secretary, but its head, Warren, will become an assistant to Wonderboy.

According to the recently-passed financial sector regulatory legislation, however, the bureau is actually part of the Federal Reserve, with its budget provided by that entity, rather than an explicit Congressional allowance.

The Constitution is clear that any "Officers of the United States" are subject to Senatorial confirmation. Given Wonderboy's heavy verbal buildup up Warren and her spanking-new Bureau, you'd think she qualifies. But that would mean she'd have to pass muster with the Senate. And these days, even the Democratically-controlled upper chamber isn't considered a rubber stamp for Warren.

And, according to the Journal article,

"On July 21, Mr. Obama signed a bill passed by both Houses stating that the "Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate."

That phrase would now seem to have the force of law, thus requiring Warren to be confirmed by the Senate. The Journal editorial ends by observing,

"We have here another end-run around Constitutional niceties so Team Obama can invest huge authority in an unelected official who is unable to withstand a public vetting. So a bureau inside an agency that it doesn't report to, with a budget not subject to Congressional control, now gets a leader not subject to Senate confirmation. If Dick Cheney had tried this, he'd have been accused of staging a coup."

It makes me wonder what might happen if a) Republicans gain control of both Houses and require Warren's confirmation, and/or b) the next president, presumably a Republican, simply leaves the new bureau unled and unstaffed.

This newly-created and ominously-named Consumer Financial Protection Bureau surely is among the most strangely-devised, organized and 'led' of perhaps any ever created in the federal government.

As to its probably effect on the financial sector, more on that in a subsequent post on my companion business blog.

Sharron Angel & Christine O'Donnell Move The Tea Party To The Center

A curious thing has happened as Tea Party-supported candidates for the Senate in several GOP races have won their nominations.

The victors, including Christine O'Donnell of Delaware and Sharron Angel of Nevada, have corrected the mainstream media's depiction of the Tea Party as a right-wing fringe group of nutcases.

Instead, both candidates, and, I'm sure, others, have correctly described their Tea Party supporters as simply mainstream, independent voters who are fed up with the same ever-expanding federalism they get from professional politicians and federal office-holders of both parties.

As much as I admired and liked George W. Bush, and, for that matter, his father, for several things they did, and for what they supported, they both helped expand the federal welfare state. So has the Republican-controlled Senate and House in recent years.

Tea Party activists aren't a splinter group of crazy idealogues. Rather, their- our- ideas are currently popular and credible: shrink the size, scope, taxes, borrowing and spending of our federal government. Restore the federal government back to its minimalist role as a jointly-agreed upon single entity, by vote of the states, which implements the necessary- and only the necessary- federal actions which are required by the United States.

Many of us who have attended Tea Party events and donated time or money to candidates voicing these views see the federal government as having been improperly become an entity unto itself. Perhaps the best example of how this has perverted the Constitution is the so-called Supremacy Doctrine, whereby, whenever the federal government chooses to weigh in on an issue, it automatically supercedes states rights.

Somewhere in the past century, the limits of federal power were conveniently ignored, so that the federal officials insert themselves in matters of dubious legitimacy.

It's sufficiently noxious to merit its own amendment. And, with a little luck, may bring that about in reaction.

But back to the main point. This sort of federal overreach is why Tea Partiers aren't a fringe. Most Americans are appalled at the last 19 months of federal autocracy, and want their country and government back.

O'Donnell and Angel are merely two Senate candidates who understand that their views and those of the Tea Party activists are far more prevalent than mainstream media outlets, and, sadly, even the GOP, dare acknowledge.

Peggy Noonan Gratuitously Blesses The Tea Party!

Apparently indicating that Tea Party activists aren't legitimate until she says so, Peggy Noonan titled her most recent weekend Wall Street Journal editorial Why It's Time for the Tea Party.

As a conservative independent who attended last year's 9-12 rally at the Capitol, and another against the passage of ObamaCare at the same location, I find Noonan's attitude to be arrogant and repugnant.

As a card-carrying member of the nation's established political class and parties, Noonan and her ilk are the ones who put us where we now are. Sure, sure, every one of us voted, or didn't, for candidates who put us deeply into debt, gave us an entitlement society, and have poured sand into the gears of our economy.

But you know what I mean. They- meaning both parties' careerists, including Noonan- made it nearly impossible for an average person of modest means to run and win a Congressional election. Our choices have become basically liberal Democrats or their opponents, liberal Democrats-Lite, a/k/a Republicans.

This weekend's Journal editorial cataloging the disappearance of New York's Republican party into a sort of weird, grafting onto the Democrats, creating a single, self-perpetuating group of politicos, is not far from describing the national scene, as well.

Does any truly independent voter want John Boehner as the next Speaker, or Mitch McConnell as the Senate Leader? Doubtful.

Noonan, now trying to pretend she's been objective and non-aligned all this time, gives us her own little analogy of why Tea Partiers are up in arms. Are, to quote the Peter Finch's character from Network,

"Mad as hell and (I'm) not going to take it anymore."

Yes, we are- finally- ready to "do something about it."

Even to the point of nominating otherwise unaccomplished people like Christine O'Donnell in Delaware to run as the Republican candidate for the Senate. It's become so alarming how badly our professional political class has run America to the brink of financial disaster, economic lethargy and defense lapses that we'll vote for someone who simply promises to vote to limit government and shrink spending. Nothing else really matters at this point.

That's certainly how I feel. It's why I'd vote for anyone to the right of my idiotic Representative, Lance Leonard. Or maybe It's Leonard Lance. Does it really matter? He's a buffoon, whichever his name is.

Noonan thinks it's news to write,

"The populist movement is more a critique of the GOP than a wing of it."

Really, Peggy. Gee, Glenn Beck has been saying that for, what, since CNBC's Rick Santelli called for the first Tea Party in Chicago on July 4th of last year?

Then Noonan solemnly invents two devices, "the yardstick" and "the clock" to explain the Tea Party. You can't make this stuff up. The issues are already painfully simple, but, apparently, not simple enough for Noonan.

Here's the shorter version: independent voters are tired of career pols of both parties taking too much power at the federal level, as well as spending and taxing too much. It's reached a tipping point in the view of many voters. There, I did it in two sentences.

Of course, I have an advantage, Peggy. I've actually been to Tea Party functions, met real members/participants and talked with them.

Have you?

That said, Noonan, after carefully disguising her tracks for 90% of her column, finally shows her true colors in the final two paragraphs of her editorial,

"A movement like this can help a nation by acting as a corrective, or it can descend into a corrosive populism that celebrates unknowingness as authenticity, that confuses showiness with seriousness and vulgarity with true conviction. Parts could become swept by a desire just to tear down, to destroy.

But establishments exist for a reason. It is true that the party establishment is compromised, and by many things, but one of them is experience. They've lived through a lot, seen a lot, know the national terrain. They know how things work. They know the history. I wonder if tea party members know how fragile are the institutions that help keep the country together.

One difference so far between the tea party and the great wave of conservatives that elected Ronald Reagan in 1980 is the latter was a true coalition—not only North and South, East and West but right-wingers, intellectuals who were former leftists, and former Democrats. When they won presidential landslides in 1980, '84 and '88, they brought the center with them. That in the end is how you win. Will the center join arms and work with the tea party? That's a great question of 2012."

Nice try, Peggy, but this isn't Revolutionary France, and there is no Robespierre. And, by the way, Peggy, nearly nothing that the Gipper accomplished lasted. His major failing, in what I call Conservatism 1.0, was to not cement via Constitutional Amendments some of the limited, temporary headway he made against the Welfare State. This time, under Conservativism 2.0, we might get there.

God, let's hope the Tea Party Senators and Representatives don't work with the center, but clean them the hell out of power and do the unthinkables. Like enforce absolute budget cuts, real balanced budgets, and shrink federal regulatory reach and power back to levels with which the country can actually prosper and enjoy personal liberty and freedom once more.