Seems to me that last year, Hillary Clinton blasted then-President George W. Bush for asking the Arabs to moderate oil prices and pump sufficient quantities to alleviate our supply issues. No doubt Wonderboy did much the same to criticize Bush's administration.
How the worm turns!
Now, as Wonderboy's minion, tax-cheat Geithner is imploring the Chinese to keep buying Treasuries.
Sound familiar?
Now, this administration, after debauching the dollar in just three months, is out begging other countries to continue to support our unsustainable spending habits.
Guess it's different now, huh, Hill?
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George Bush. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Change Was Coming Anyway
One thing I found amazing about the recent Presidential election was the three candidates who seemed to be running.
I say three, because the Democratic candidate apparently convinced many Americans that George Bush was somehow running for a third term.
How else to explain the constant, mind-numbing call for "change?"
Boys and girls, we were getting a change anyway. Capice?
McCain, Obama. It almost didn't matter, in the sense that nobody running was as much a conservative as was our 44th President.
Even when he trained his sites on McCain, Obama constantly identified him as simply another term of George Bush's administration.
Yet conservatives know this would never have been true. Personally, I have never trusted McCain since his horrible co-sponsorship of the hated, laughably-ineffectual and ham-handed McCain-Fiengold campaign finance legislation over ten years ago.
I can vividly recall telling a colleague where I worked in 1998 that nobody dumb enough to co-author that bill had any business ever running for the Oval Office.
McCain was never my first choice among GOP candidates. Though unelectable to the Republican ticket, I preferred Romney or Giuliani. Either could likely have run a better campaign than McCain, scored decisive points in debates, and certainly lost by less, if not won the election.
But we were always due for substantive change after George Bush. McCain's lack of guiding principles, other than capping his public service career, would have resulted in more of the worst of George Bush's moderate moments as Presidents. The only saving grace would have been McCain's veto pen over Frisco Nan's and Harry Reid's worst social spending and entitlement atrocities. And the right to nominate a few Supreme Court judges.
I guess it's a testament to the gullibility of the average American voter that so many fell for a non-issue- change.
Change happens at least every four years, and no less than every eight.
In that, you can believe.
I say three, because the Democratic candidate apparently convinced many Americans that George Bush was somehow running for a third term.
How else to explain the constant, mind-numbing call for "change?"
Boys and girls, we were getting a change anyway. Capice?
McCain, Obama. It almost didn't matter, in the sense that nobody running was as much a conservative as was our 44th President.
Even when he trained his sites on McCain, Obama constantly identified him as simply another term of George Bush's administration.
Yet conservatives know this would never have been true. Personally, I have never trusted McCain since his horrible co-sponsorship of the hated, laughably-ineffectual and ham-handed McCain-Fiengold campaign finance legislation over ten years ago.
I can vividly recall telling a colleague where I worked in 1998 that nobody dumb enough to co-author that bill had any business ever running for the Oval Office.
McCain was never my first choice among GOP candidates. Though unelectable to the Republican ticket, I preferred Romney or Giuliani. Either could likely have run a better campaign than McCain, scored decisive points in debates, and certainly lost by less, if not won the election.
But we were always due for substantive change after George Bush. McCain's lack of guiding principles, other than capping his public service career, would have resulted in more of the worst of George Bush's moderate moments as Presidents. The only saving grace would have been McCain's veto pen over Frisco Nan's and Harry Reid's worst social spending and entitlement atrocities. And the right to nominate a few Supreme Court judges.
I guess it's a testament to the gullibility of the average American voter that so many fell for a non-issue- change.
Change happens at least every four years, and no less than every eight.
In that, you can believe.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
My Inaugural Day
I successfully avoided seeing any of the official swearing in of the new President on Tuesday.
Instead, I tuned in to see George Bush's last moments prior to heading back to Texas. It was very emotional for me.
The pain and shock of seeing a stalwart, effective President leave office, to be replaced by a totally inexperienced charlatan, made it a very depressing day.
Seeing Bush board the helicopter and, then, enter the hangar at Andrews AFB, and, again, his plane home, was very moving.
Something that Democrats, and the First Rookie, never really understood, is that Bush didn't lose the election.
The new President may have fooled his own party and many voters, but the truth is, he didn't run against George Bush. He ran against an inept campaigner, John McCain.
Bush was relieved and happy at the inaugural on Tuesday because he knew he was leaving on that day, no matter who won.
Back in 2004, Bush joined a very select group of men. Only a third of our Presidents have won two terms (or more). Something the Illinois Rookie is extremely unlikely to do.
That is, I believe, part of the reason why Bush has been so magnanimous with his successor. The Rookie doesn't fully comprehend this yet.
He will.
Instead, I tuned in to see George Bush's last moments prior to heading back to Texas. It was very emotional for me.
The pain and shock of seeing a stalwart, effective President leave office, to be replaced by a totally inexperienced charlatan, made it a very depressing day.
Seeing Bush board the helicopter and, then, enter the hangar at Andrews AFB, and, again, his plane home, was very moving.
Something that Democrats, and the First Rookie, never really understood, is that Bush didn't lose the election.
The new President may have fooled his own party and many voters, but the truth is, he didn't run against George Bush. He ran against an inept campaigner, John McCain.
Bush was relieved and happy at the inaugural on Tuesday because he knew he was leaving on that day, no matter who won.
Back in 2004, Bush joined a very select group of men. Only a third of our Presidents have won two terms (or more). Something the Illinois Rookie is extremely unlikely to do.
That is, I believe, part of the reason why Bush has been so magnanimous with his successor. The Rookie doesn't fully comprehend this yet.
He will.
The Missing Libby Pardon
I remain perplexed as to why George Bush, so concerned about his legacy that he folded on the US auto maker bailout, ignored the repercussions of not pardoning Lewis Libby.
I won't recite all the details of the flawed pursuit of injustice by US special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Suffice to say that the Democrat knew all along who "leaked," if you could ever call it that, Valerie Plame's CIA employment- it was a Colin Powell lieutenant at State.
Still, Fitzgerald pretended he didn't know, and proceeded to bully and browbeat anyone he chose in the alleged pursuit of the leaker.
Lewis Libby defended his President's war effort, and paid an unfair price by being made a political scapegoat, albeit via the courts.
Why didn't the President pardon him before leaving town yesterday? I'm not sure we'll ever know. It's seems so odd to me that a President who so clearly felt empathy with the families of many war casualties couldn't seem to find the depth of compassion for his own administration's staff, when unfairly hounded by opposition and the media.
The entire Plame affair was a joke. Plame's husband attempted to mislead the administration. Plame herself was already known to be a CIA employee well before Novack's column.
In the end, many journalistic reputations were tarnished. And the case against Libby boiled down to a difference of memories about some by then distant conversation between two people.
I'm just amazed that President Bush did not fully pardon Libby. It seemed like such an obvious case in which one of his team took an undeserved fall for acts which were, at the time, clearly in Bush's interests, and not at all illegal.
This missed opportunity for a pardon is, as the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger wrote last week, a dangerous signal for future potential Washington aides, their spouses and families. It clearly shows how a single, tangential act by one person can bring them ruin, even though the act wasn't illegal or material.
I won't recite all the details of the flawed pursuit of injustice by US special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald. Suffice to say that the Democrat knew all along who "leaked," if you could ever call it that, Valerie Plame's CIA employment- it was a Colin Powell lieutenant at State.
Still, Fitzgerald pretended he didn't know, and proceeded to bully and browbeat anyone he chose in the alleged pursuit of the leaker.
Lewis Libby defended his President's war effort, and paid an unfair price by being made a political scapegoat, albeit via the courts.
Why didn't the President pardon him before leaving town yesterday? I'm not sure we'll ever know. It's seems so odd to me that a President who so clearly felt empathy with the families of many war casualties couldn't seem to find the depth of compassion for his own administration's staff, when unfairly hounded by opposition and the media.
The entire Plame affair was a joke. Plame's husband attempted to mislead the administration. Plame herself was already known to be a CIA employee well before Novack's column.
In the end, many journalistic reputations were tarnished. And the case against Libby boiled down to a difference of memories about some by then distant conversation between two people.
I'm just amazed that President Bush did not fully pardon Libby. It seemed like such an obvious case in which one of his team took an undeserved fall for acts which were, at the time, clearly in Bush's interests, and not at all illegal.
This missed opportunity for a pardon is, as the Wall Street Journal's Daniel Henninger wrote last week, a dangerous signal for future potential Washington aides, their spouses and families. It clearly shows how a single, tangential act by one person can bring them ruin, even though the act wasn't illegal or material.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Bush Disappoints
Well, I was wrong. This recent post was prematurely optimistic.
According to Bush's remarks at 9am on Friday, he was influenced by his own advisers, who felt that GM CEO Rick Wagoner would spitefully push his own company into Chapter 7 liquidation, rather than Chapter 11 reorganization, if he was not lent the billions he wanted.
Bush blinked. There's not way around it. Between his honest desire not to hand his successor an in-liquidation auto sector, and his desire to foster a better legacy, he let his advisers talk him off of his innate conservative principles.
To me, this simply illustrates even more clearly what a contemptuous person Rick Wagoner is. His threat to destroy his own company, in order to cover up his mismanagement, is too egregious to describe.
But, that said, George Bush faltered and took the threat seriously. Sure, he limited the amount of the loan, and made it clear that he would leave any further assistance to the next president.
However, he missed the chance to force GM and Chrysler into a merger via Chapter 11, of their own volition.
The good news, though, is that Senate Republicans hung tough, and will be able to continue burnishing their conservative credentials in the months ahead.
According to Bush's remarks at 9am on Friday, he was influenced by his own advisers, who felt that GM CEO Rick Wagoner would spitefully push his own company into Chapter 7 liquidation, rather than Chapter 11 reorganization, if he was not lent the billions he wanted.
Bush blinked. There's not way around it. Between his honest desire not to hand his successor an in-liquidation auto sector, and his desire to foster a better legacy, he let his advisers talk him off of his innate conservative principles.
To me, this simply illustrates even more clearly what a contemptuous person Rick Wagoner is. His threat to destroy his own company, in order to cover up his mismanagement, is too egregious to describe.
But, that said, George Bush faltered and took the threat seriously. Sure, he limited the amount of the loan, and made it clear that he would leave any further assistance to the next president.
However, he missed the chance to force GM and Chrysler into a merger via Chapter 11, of their own volition.
The good news, though, is that Senate Republicans hung tough, and will be able to continue burnishing their conservative credentials in the months ahead.
Friday, December 19, 2008
President Bush On Detroit Bailout: Thank God for Small Favors
We can thank God for small favors.
In two interviews this week, President Bush has enumerated several concerns about whether or not to release TARP funds as loans to GM or Chrysler.
Far from rushing to release the funds, the President said he doesn't want to 'throw good money after bad,' and prefers an 'orderly bankruptcy' to a total, immediate liquidation.
Maybe we're not seeing him cave in to the UAW's Gettelfinger just yet, as Paul Ingrassia wrote on Monday in the Wall Street Journal.
Bush went further, stating that he is trying to minimize the size of problems left to his successor, and is putting himself in that position, to consider what would be best to do from that perspective.
He also went on record as requiring the UAW to give on some contract aspects in order to make any loan worthwhile, rather than useless in the long term.
Maybe there's still hope that GM will be pushed into a normal Chapter 11 filing after all.
We may know later this morning.
In two interviews this week, President Bush has enumerated several concerns about whether or not to release TARP funds as loans to GM or Chrysler.
Far from rushing to release the funds, the President said he doesn't want to 'throw good money after bad,' and prefers an 'orderly bankruptcy' to a total, immediate liquidation.
Maybe we're not seeing him cave in to the UAW's Gettelfinger just yet, as Paul Ingrassia wrote on Monday in the Wall Street Journal.
Bush went further, stating that he is trying to minimize the size of problems left to his successor, and is putting himself in that position, to consider what would be best to do from that perspective.
He also went on record as requiring the UAW to give on some contract aspects in order to make any loan worthwhile, rather than useless in the long term.
Maybe there's still hope that GM will be pushed into a normal Chapter 11 filing after all.
We may know later this morning.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Karl Rove Vs. Alan Colmes Last Week On Fox News
Alan Colmes is the resident liberal on Fox News, co-heading the Hannity & Colmes evening program. As such, he's the token liberal for the network. Too bad they chose such an unintelligent, slow man for that role.
Last week, during one of his many appearances on that program, Karl Rove tangled with Colmes over the question of how McCain's stands on various issues, if not in line with Bush's, means Bush has been 'wrong.'
The format of the H&C program is that liberal guests are interviewed first by conservative anchor Sean Hannity, while conservative guests get tossed inane questions by liberal Colmes. Thus, Rove always talks with Colmes first.
These days, Karl Rove is on Bill O'Reilly's and H&C's programs about three times per week, if not nightly. The episode which caught my attention recently involved Colmes attempting to grill Rove on some topic- foreign policy, financial regulation, economics- take your pick, with which John McCain disagrees with some part of the current administration's past or present actions.
Colmes' disingenuous tactic, which he evidently thinks is deep, clever and effective, is to pose a conundrum to Rove along these lines,
'President Bush said (or did) X during his administration. That didn't work. Does John McCain agree with Bush, which means he also is wrong? Or does he disagree, meaning he's breaking ranks and admits Bush was wrong. Which is it?'
Of course, Colmes knows Rove was a major participant in the Bush administration for years, so these sorts of questions are also directly baiting Rove to argue over issues with which he may have been directly involved.
What is so sad is that Rove easily sidesteps Colmes with the always-correct, and true, reply,
'Alan, it's not that simple. President Bush had to deal with the world as it was at the time solutions were required over the past eight years. John McCain will have to deal with the world as it is today and for the next four years. Thus, he may have different views on how to solve problems today which we approached differently during the Bush administration.'
It's a fair and effective response. Moreover, Rove delivers it with a smile, almost winking to the audience that he isn't going to take advantage of the mental midget who asked the leading, ill-constructed question.
Unfortunately, Colmes does this with every Republican whose path he crosses, hoping vainly to lure somebody into his simplistic world in which, despite shifting sands of time and power, all prior decisions must be either sustained, or attacked, as right or wrong now, by any member of the Republican party.
Hopefully, at some point in the future, Fox will recruit a smarter man than Alan Colmes to fence with Hannity and the program's conservative guests.
Last week, during one of his many appearances on that program, Karl Rove tangled with Colmes over the question of how McCain's stands on various issues, if not in line with Bush's, means Bush has been 'wrong.'
The format of the H&C program is that liberal guests are interviewed first by conservative anchor Sean Hannity, while conservative guests get tossed inane questions by liberal Colmes. Thus, Rove always talks with Colmes first.
These days, Karl Rove is on Bill O'Reilly's and H&C's programs about three times per week, if not nightly. The episode which caught my attention recently involved Colmes attempting to grill Rove on some topic- foreign policy, financial regulation, economics- take your pick, with which John McCain disagrees with some part of the current administration's past or present actions.
Colmes' disingenuous tactic, which he evidently thinks is deep, clever and effective, is to pose a conundrum to Rove along these lines,
'President Bush said (or did) X during his administration. That didn't work. Does John McCain agree with Bush, which means he also is wrong? Or does he disagree, meaning he's breaking ranks and admits Bush was wrong. Which is it?'
Of course, Colmes knows Rove was a major participant in the Bush administration for years, so these sorts of questions are also directly baiting Rove to argue over issues with which he may have been directly involved.
What is so sad is that Rove easily sidesteps Colmes with the always-correct, and true, reply,
'Alan, it's not that simple. President Bush had to deal with the world as it was at the time solutions were required over the past eight years. John McCain will have to deal with the world as it is today and for the next four years. Thus, he may have different views on how to solve problems today which we approached differently during the Bush administration.'
It's a fair and effective response. Moreover, Rove delivers it with a smile, almost winking to the audience that he isn't going to take advantage of the mental midget who asked the leading, ill-constructed question.
Unfortunately, Colmes does this with every Republican whose path he crosses, hoping vainly to lure somebody into his simplistic world in which, despite shifting sands of time and power, all prior decisions must be either sustained, or attacked, as right or wrong now, by any member of the Republican party.
Hopefully, at some point in the future, Fox will recruit a smarter man than Alan Colmes to fence with Hannity and the program's conservative guests.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Obama's The Appeaser
Last week's delightful statements regarding appeasement seem to have smoked out the real, appeasing Obama.
It began, of course, with President Bush delivering a perfectly statesmanlike, non-directive address in Israel. Fittingly, in a country beset by terrorists surrounding it, Bush opined on the folly of treating with terrorists, calling it by its rightful name, 'appeasement.'
The rookie Senator from Illinois, also now the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, obligingly squawked that Bush had improperly attacked him from beyond US soil.
Funny thing, though, is that Bush named nobody in his address. It was quite clearly a general statement of principles from a man that has followed them assiduously for his entire term.
As Newt Gingrich said that evening on Fox News, in reply to bullying from, I believe, Alan Colmes, to paraphrase,
'The best thing Obama could have done was to have simply seconded Bush's statement. Instead, he raised his head up and painted himself as an appeaser by complaining that he had been unfairly targeted, although there is absolutely no evidence of this.'
It really does mark the freshman Senator's campaign as not-yet-ready for prime time, doesn't it?
By committing this fairly serious gaffe, Obama set himself up for a deserved smack by John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee for the November election.
McCain pointedly agreed with President Bush, and noted Obama's offer to meet with leaders of terrorist-supporting nations, specifically Iran, as naive and potentially damaging to efforts at reining in these rogue nations.
Obama, ever the obliging greenhorn, then shot back at McCain that he will debate the more-experienced, senior Senator from Arizona 'anywhere, anytime,' etc., on foreign policy.
Of course, sidelined in this spat was Hillary, who sort of looked like a useless onlooker in a duel.
It's difficult to believe that someone with Obama's ever-increasingly obvious naivete, inexperience and overall bad judgement can be a serious candidate for President of the US.
It began, of course, with President Bush delivering a perfectly statesmanlike, non-directive address in Israel. Fittingly, in a country beset by terrorists surrounding it, Bush opined on the folly of treating with terrorists, calling it by its rightful name, 'appeasement.'
The rookie Senator from Illinois, also now the leading Democratic Presidential candidate, obligingly squawked that Bush had improperly attacked him from beyond US soil.
Funny thing, though, is that Bush named nobody in his address. It was quite clearly a general statement of principles from a man that has followed them assiduously for his entire term.
As Newt Gingrich said that evening on Fox News, in reply to bullying from, I believe, Alan Colmes, to paraphrase,
'The best thing Obama could have done was to have simply seconded Bush's statement. Instead, he raised his head up and painted himself as an appeaser by complaining that he had been unfairly targeted, although there is absolutely no evidence of this.'
It really does mark the freshman Senator's campaign as not-yet-ready for prime time, doesn't it?
By committing this fairly serious gaffe, Obama set himself up for a deserved smack by John McCain, the Republican Presidential nominee for the November election.
McCain pointedly agreed with President Bush, and noted Obama's offer to meet with leaders of terrorist-supporting nations, specifically Iran, as naive and potentially damaging to efforts at reining in these rogue nations.
Obama, ever the obliging greenhorn, then shot back at McCain that he will debate the more-experienced, senior Senator from Arizona 'anywhere, anytime,' etc., on foreign policy.
Of course, sidelined in this spat was Hillary, who sort of looked like a useless onlooker in a duel.
It's difficult to believe that someone with Obama's ever-increasingly obvious naivete, inexperience and overall bad judgement can be a serious candidate for President of the US.
Thursday, November 1, 2007
Hillary On The Defensive
The Wall Street Journal's recent piece on the Democratic Presidential candidates' "debate" on the Drexel University campus in Philadelphia, portrayed Hillary Clinton as beginning to exhibit the behaviors which I personally believe will ultimately deny her the White House.
For example, the Journal piece read, in part,
"Indeed, each of her rivals condemned Mrs. Clinton's vote on the Iran resolution as unnecessary saber rattling. Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware voted against the measure; Mr. Obama missed the voted. Several of the Democrats said the nonbinding resolution harked back chillingly to the march to war in Iraq. Mrs. Clinton said she considered the vote -- essentially for economic sanctions against Iran's elite military -- to be a part of diplomacy, not a prelude to battle.
Instead of pushing back, though, Mrs. Clinton turned her criticism on President Bush, condemning his administration on nearly every level as one that needed to be junked. She noted that if she were on board with the Republicans, "I don't think [they] got the message that I'm voting and sounding like them." A few minutes later, she referred to "the Republicans and their constant obsession with me."
Mr. Edwards couldn't let this last bit of rhetoric pass by. "Maybe they want to run against you," he said."
Two things seem apparent to me from this recounting of the Hillary's conduct during the debate.
One is that she is already becoming what I would call "brittle." It's a characteristic I have been expecting to come out sooner or later. Guess it's sooner, after all.
Hillary combines her desire to be and continue to be front-runner, with a sort of presumption that this means she is unassailable. It's almost as if thinking and acting it, will make it so.
The second thing is that she reacts to criticism and challenges from her fellow candidates by attacking our current President, for whom she has obvious hatred.
But she isn't running against him. Initially, she's running against Obama and Edwards. Next, perhaps, she'll run against Giuliani, Romney, McCain, or Thompson.
In this regard, I have to believe George Bush is having a laugh even now. After all, only 16 people have won two terms as President of our Republic. He has no need to prove himself again.
I cannot help but believe Hillary is running against the wrong adversary. In a sense, it's as if she wants to run against a defenseless candidate. And this retiring two-term President is defenseless, in the sense that he secure in his philosophy and accomplishments.
Could Hillary be making a major mistake by doing this? I think so. Even Democratic voters must realize that the next election doesn't feature Bush. And railing against him is not at all the same as advancing a positive vision of the future.
So many of Hillary's positions are taken in opposition to the current administration's actions and doctrines. Will that sell when she has live, active opponents challenging her for the nomination of her own party for President?
Her cavalier attitude regarding the release of documents informing us about her role in her husband's administration was captured by this Journal passage,
"Mrs. Clinton dismissed criticism of a ban, which her husband sought, that would keep the National Archives from releasing Clinton administration papers until 2012. Asked by the moderator if she would lift the ban, she replied, "That's not my decision to make." But Mr. Obama called the Clinton ban "a problem," saying Democrats need to open government after "one of the most secretive administration's in our history," Mr. Bush's."
Both by her dismissal of her opponents in favor of President Bush as her adversary, and her rather haughty, dismissive attitude regarding most criticisms of the few detailed plans she has put forth, Hillary seems to be assiduously cultivating an image of arrogance.
As if she naturally will win the Democratic nomination, and, of course, the Democrats have to win, because Bush is so...well....un-Democratic.
In the past few days, and especially after reading this account of the recent debate, I've come to believe that Hillary has caught that most dangerous of Presidential candidate diseases.
I call it the "I've waited long enough, it's my turn, dammit!" disease, and I wrote about it here, in March of this year.
Bob Dole had the disease. I think John McCain contracted it, as well. Now, it looks like it's infected Hillary.
Is it merely coincidence that all are or were US Senators? I think not.
And for this reason, as well as my belief that an accomplished executive- governor, mayor, CEO, etc.,- will beat a non-VP or incumbent former- or sitting Senator, I don't believe Hillary will win the White House in 2008.
Monday, October 15, 2007
An Inconvenient Truth: Federal Deficit Shrinks Significantly Under Bush
Has anyone noticed that, despite the rhetoric from members of both political parties, the Federal deficit is shrinking?
For instance, in last week's Republican Presidential 'debate,' Congressman Ron Paul incorrectly stated that the deficit was increasing to horrific levels. Typical hand-wringing stuff.
In reality, though, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that for fiscal 2007, the Federal deficit had declined to $162.8B, from $248B in 2006. This was a 34% reduction in the annual deficit.
Ever the party of economic lies, North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad said,
"As we approach the end of President Bush's term in office, he is desperately trying to remake his image as a fiscal conservative. But it's too little, too late. He will go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible president ever."
Wow. That's big. But, wait. Wasn't that special 'most fiscally irresponsible' title reserved for the Gipper two decades ago? Didn't Tip O'Neill used to bellyache about Reagan borrowing 'a trillion dollars and throwing a party?'
If that's all he, and our current President, had done, how did our economy continue to grow with such low inflation?
The truth, inconvenient as it may be, is that, despite fighting a war, President Bush has managed to bring down the deficit in three straight years.
Yes, there's that Nobel-class phrase- an inconvenient truth.
Personally, I think it's more a President vs. Congress thing, rather than just a party difference now. The recent Republican-dominated Congresses demonstrated their weakness for spending every buck the Federal government could tax into its coffers.
I honestly think it's a few, rare Presidents that can manage to keep their perspective, spending where necessary, without succumbing to every big-ticket liberal program that crosses their desk.
Even if President Bush should have vetoed more extravagant spending earlier in his administration, that does not alter the fact that he still has presided over three years of achievements- declining annual deficits- that Congress refuses to acknowledge.
For instance, in last week's Republican Presidential 'debate,' Congressman Ron Paul incorrectly stated that the deficit was increasing to horrific levels. Typical hand-wringing stuff.
In reality, though, the Wall Street Journal reported this week that for fiscal 2007, the Federal deficit had declined to $162.8B, from $248B in 2006. This was a 34% reduction in the annual deficit.
Ever the party of economic lies, North Dakota Democratic Senator Kent Conrad said,
"As we approach the end of President Bush's term in office, he is desperately trying to remake his image as a fiscal conservative. But it's too little, too late. He will go down in history as the most fiscally irresponsible president ever."
Wow. That's big. But, wait. Wasn't that special 'most fiscally irresponsible' title reserved for the Gipper two decades ago? Didn't Tip O'Neill used to bellyache about Reagan borrowing 'a trillion dollars and throwing a party?'
If that's all he, and our current President, had done, how did our economy continue to grow with such low inflation?
The truth, inconvenient as it may be, is that, despite fighting a war, President Bush has managed to bring down the deficit in three straight years.
Yes, there's that Nobel-class phrase- an inconvenient truth.
Personally, I think it's more a President vs. Congress thing, rather than just a party difference now. The recent Republican-dominated Congresses demonstrated their weakness for spending every buck the Federal government could tax into its coffers.
I honestly think it's a few, rare Presidents that can manage to keep their perspective, spending where necessary, without succumbing to every big-ticket liberal program that crosses their desk.
Even if President Bush should have vetoed more extravagant spending earlier in his administration, that does not alter the fact that he still has presided over three years of achievements- declining annual deficits- that Congress refuses to acknowledge.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Bush's Spending Record: Does Anybody Remember There's A War Going On?
On CNBC earlier this week, a fallacious analysis , by the Heritage Foundation, no less, was presented, contending that Federal spending growth under Clinton was about half (3%) of what it has been under Bush (7%).
Does anyone remember we're fighting a shooting war in Iraq and Pakistan?
To compare total spending under Clinton, who, by the way, was interested in shrinking the military, with that under Bush, is like saying FDR just started spending through the roof one day, under conditions no different from those on Herbert Hoover's watch, conveniently overlooking the occurrence WWII.
What gives here? Between repairing defense after Clinton starved that spending, and combating the terrorism threat that President also left intact, Bush had no choice but, amidst the response to hostile attacks on US soil, reply with force, necessitating increased spending.
In his editorial letter in the Wall Street Journal offering a defense against Alan Greenspan's charges of Bush administration profligacy, Vice President Dick Cheney pointedly compares growth in discretionary spending categories between Clinton's and Bush's terms.
Finally, let's recall that, after Congress challenged President Nixon's use of impoundment, in court, and won, no subsequent President can be held fully accountable for Congressional spending. Rather than being able to use a line item veto, impoundment, or any other conditional means of tempering Congress' spending, a President is left with only a veto of total spending bills. Which bills tend to be omnibus affairs calculated to dare a President to starve the Federal government of funding, in order to further various other political and spending agendas.
There is simply no comparison between Federal government spending rates during Clinton's and Bush's terms of office. The war in Iraq and Pakistan make a basis for any such comparison difficult to establish, with Cheney's approach being the most realistic. And on that score, examining non-defense, security and discretionary items, Bush is actually doing quite well.
Does anyone remember we're fighting a shooting war in Iraq and Pakistan?
To compare total spending under Clinton, who, by the way, was interested in shrinking the military, with that under Bush, is like saying FDR just started spending through the roof one day, under conditions no different from those on Herbert Hoover's watch, conveniently overlooking the occurrence WWII.
What gives here? Between repairing defense after Clinton starved that spending, and combating the terrorism threat that President also left intact, Bush had no choice but, amidst the response to hostile attacks on US soil, reply with force, necessitating increased spending.
In his editorial letter in the Wall Street Journal offering a defense against Alan Greenspan's charges of Bush administration profligacy, Vice President Dick Cheney pointedly compares growth in discretionary spending categories between Clinton's and Bush's terms.
Finally, let's recall that, after Congress challenged President Nixon's use of impoundment, in court, and won, no subsequent President can be held fully accountable for Congressional spending. Rather than being able to use a line item veto, impoundment, or any other conditional means of tempering Congress' spending, a President is left with only a veto of total spending bills. Which bills tend to be omnibus affairs calculated to dare a President to starve the Federal government of funding, in order to further various other political and spending agendas.
There is simply no comparison between Federal government spending rates during Clinton's and Bush's terms of office. The war in Iraq and Pakistan make a basis for any such comparison difficult to establish, with Cheney's approach being the most realistic. And on that score, examining non-defense, security and discretionary items, Bush is actually doing quite well.
Monday, June 25, 2007
America, The Plutocracy
As I discussed handicapping the very early Presidential race with my conservative friend, Merritt, the other day, he identified an astonishing pattern.
I have to admit, for someone who believes I am pretty observant, this shocked me.
Merritt noted that, if Hillary is elected in 2008, the US will have been governed by Presidents from just two immediate families for a total of 24 years.
How could I have missed this?
Between three Bush terms, and what would be at least three, and possibly four, Clinton terms, you have plutocracy which outstrips even FDR.
Which is why I think this bodes very poorly for Hillary. I can't see many red state Americans, including many who voted Democratic in those states, and many in red states, prolonging the rule of the Clintons.
Never mind the two party system. We're talking "two family" system now.
Because if Hillary wins, you know Jeb Bush will become an immediate candidate for 2012.
Honestly, I just don't think a lot of Americans are ready to commit America to nearly three decades of rule by just two small families.
America, in my opinion, is ready for a black or female President. Just not 'this' female, Hillary, or 'that' black, Obama.
She's too shrill and calculating, he's too immature and inexperienced.
And now, add to that, she's going to perpetuate incestuous leadership of the country in a manner heretofore never seen.
You can take all the polls you want, and argue about how much money each candidate has. But, sometimes, it's the emotional issues, not the quantifiable ones, that make the difference.
On this one, I think most Americans will recoil in horror as they learn, and they surely will sometime in the next 17 months, that Hillary's election would result in such a long, unbroken string of Presidents emanating from just two immediate, non-extended families.
I have to admit, for someone who believes I am pretty observant, this shocked me.
Merritt noted that, if Hillary is elected in 2008, the US will have been governed by Presidents from just two immediate families for a total of 24 years.
How could I have missed this?
Between three Bush terms, and what would be at least three, and possibly four, Clinton terms, you have plutocracy which outstrips even FDR.
Which is why I think this bodes very poorly for Hillary. I can't see many red state Americans, including many who voted Democratic in those states, and many in red states, prolonging the rule of the Clintons.
Never mind the two party system. We're talking "two family" system now.
Because if Hillary wins, you know Jeb Bush will become an immediate candidate for 2012.
Honestly, I just don't think a lot of Americans are ready to commit America to nearly three decades of rule by just two small families.
America, in my opinion, is ready for a black or female President. Just not 'this' female, Hillary, or 'that' black, Obama.
She's too shrill and calculating, he's too immature and inexperienced.
And now, add to that, she's going to perpetuate incestuous leadership of the country in a manner heretofore never seen.
You can take all the polls you want, and argue about how much money each candidate has. But, sometimes, it's the emotional issues, not the quantifiable ones, that make the difference.
On this one, I think most Americans will recoil in horror as they learn, and they surely will sometime in the next 17 months, that Hillary's election would result in such a long, unbroken string of Presidents emanating from just two immediate, non-extended families.
Monday, June 11, 2007
The G8 Backs Bush's Original Climate Change Positions
Kim Strassel, the Wall Street Journal's superb editorial columnist, and a senior WSJ executive, wrote a scintillating piece on Friday concerning the recent G8 climate statement.
While no one will admit it, she points out that they adopted George Bush's original positions on nearly every point in the release. Over the last few years, the infamous Kyoto Accords have failed.
Governmental fiat didn't push back the carbon tide. Bush's idea was to engage industry to grow its way to less pollution, rather than force emissions down simply by edict.
Ms. Strassel notes that someone 'capitulated' over this issue, but it wasn't Bush. She further notes that, under Kyoto, Europe increased emissions by 2.3 percentage points in five years, while most signatories can't meet their targets.
She even quotes Tony Blair as saying,
"The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem." He even doubted that the Kyoto treaty will have a successor instrument after its expiration in 2012.
Perhaps the major Bush victory is to abstain from taking this whole issue seriously while two of the world's largest countries, India and China, also abstain. Instead, Bush led the US to establish a voluntary climate pact with Asia-Pacific nations, including China and India.
Moreover, the G8 declaration is full of 'goals,' and states that programs "must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies."
Though roundly excoriates by liberals and greens, Bush's patient common sense has won the day internationally on this issue. Gore may have won an Oscar, but Bush won the war on how to effect a response to climate change.
While no one will admit it, she points out that they adopted George Bush's original positions on nearly every point in the release. Over the last few years, the infamous Kyoto Accords have failed.
Governmental fiat didn't push back the carbon tide. Bush's idea was to engage industry to grow its way to less pollution, rather than force emissions down simply by edict.
Ms. Strassel notes that someone 'capitulated' over this issue, but it wasn't Bush. She further notes that, under Kyoto, Europe increased emissions by 2.3 percentage points in five years, while most signatories can't meet their targets.
She even quotes Tony Blair as saying,
"The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem." He even doubted that the Kyoto treaty will have a successor instrument after its expiration in 2012.
Perhaps the major Bush victory is to abstain from taking this whole issue seriously while two of the world's largest countries, India and China, also abstain. Instead, Bush led the US to establish a voluntary climate pact with Asia-Pacific nations, including China and India.
Moreover, the G8 declaration is full of 'goals,' and states that programs "must be undertaken in a way that supports growth in developing, emerging and industrialized economies."
Though roundly excoriates by liberals and greens, Bush's patient common sense has won the day internationally on this issue. Gore may have won an Oscar, but Bush won the war on how to effect a response to climate change.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
An Historic Week
From my perspective, stretching back to recalling Kennedy's assassination, and, barely, the Cuban missile crisis, President Bush's explicit promise to veto the Democratic Senate's and House's funding bill on Iraq this week, because it contains a mandatory exit date for US troops, is an historic event.
Unlike Nixon during the Vietnam war, Bush has clearly stated , in his Tuesday address, that he is not presiding over an explicit, publicly telegraphed pullout of US troops, in order to give our enemies a precise timetable as to when they may resume their terrorist activities. But doing so, President Bush has done two things. First, he's reversed the tendency of the modern Presidency, post-Nixon, to buckle to Congress and seek accommodation. Second, he has demonstrated that he understands the lessons of Vietnam, and dealing with an enemy as well as a hostile Congress.
Upon reading the Wall Street Journal's editorial this week about 'Harry Reid's war,' I had to smile at Reid's naivete. I think he's mistaking an American dislike of losing wars for a dislike of war. By thinking that polls are finding the latter, Reid is going to do the former, and, I believe, lose his party's Senate majority come 2008. Less than going to war, Americans dislike losing a war, and they won't be charitable to one of the architects of that defeat.
I also find it curious that Reid is from Nevada, which is smack in the heart of the conservative American southwest.
Rather than pick up seats, I am reasonably sure Reid and Frisco Nan will see shrinking pluralities should the Democrats stick to their current course in forcing a date for exiting Iraq.
Thank God that the US has a President with the calm confidence, resolution and clear-sightedness of George Bush. Unlike Bill Clinton, you can't accuse him of waffling or being fickle. He doesn't sway with the winds of what is merely popular, though ill-advised or wrong.
Bush knows that publicizing a withdrawal date from Iraq will simply hand our enemies key information which they may use to await our exit, then conquer the country. Even Joe Leiberman agrees with Bush. Is this the issue what will have the wavering moderate Democrat cross the aisle, and turn control of the upper chamber back to the Republicans?
Unlike Nixon during the Vietnam war, Bush has clearly stated , in his Tuesday address, that he is not presiding over an explicit, publicly telegraphed pullout of US troops, in order to give our enemies a precise timetable as to when they may resume their terrorist activities. But doing so, President Bush has done two things. First, he's reversed the tendency of the modern Presidency, post-Nixon, to buckle to Congress and seek accommodation. Second, he has demonstrated that he understands the lessons of Vietnam, and dealing with an enemy as well as a hostile Congress.
Upon reading the Wall Street Journal's editorial this week about 'Harry Reid's war,' I had to smile at Reid's naivete. I think he's mistaking an American dislike of losing wars for a dislike of war. By thinking that polls are finding the latter, Reid is going to do the former, and, I believe, lose his party's Senate majority come 2008. Less than going to war, Americans dislike losing a war, and they won't be charitable to one of the architects of that defeat.
I also find it curious that Reid is from Nevada, which is smack in the heart of the conservative American southwest.
Rather than pick up seats, I am reasonably sure Reid and Frisco Nan will see shrinking pluralities should the Democrats stick to their current course in forcing a date for exiting Iraq.
Thank God that the US has a President with the calm confidence, resolution and clear-sightedness of George Bush. Unlike Bill Clinton, you can't accuse him of waffling or being fickle. He doesn't sway with the winds of what is merely popular, though ill-advised or wrong.
Bush knows that publicizing a withdrawal date from Iraq will simply hand our enemies key information which they may use to await our exit, then conquer the country. Even Joe Leiberman agrees with Bush. Is this the issue what will have the wavering moderate Democrat cross the aisle, and turn control of the upper chamber back to the Republicans?
Thursday, March 29, 2007
George Bush's Presidential Stands
As the Gonzales US DA firing flap continues, it is a pleasure to see George Bush remain resolute and warn Frisco Nan not to use subpoenas as fishing licenses.
Ditto his stand on the Iraq war resolution in the House. Bush has served notice that he will make the Democrats enact a binding resolution, affecting funding, if they insist on attempting to usurp Executive Branch powers, albeit probably unconstitutionally.
As I glanced at this week's Economist cover, I saw that they have portrayed Bush, Rice and Cheney as "Besieged." I think this is a common tactic that the press uses when they do not agree with a politician- painting him or her as 'isolated,' 'besieged,' or 'out of touch.' In this case, however, I see all of Bush's stands as completely appropriate.
The war in Iraq is but a part of a religious conflict, begun by radical Islamists, that has been building since the middle of the inept Clinton administration's term. Gonzales' firing of the US attorneys is totally legal, whatever the cause. They serve at the pleasure of the President, period. Nobody in the mainstream press, save the Wall Street Journal, is reminding Americans of Slick Willie's wholesale firing of every one of the 93 sitting US District Attorney, in order to get the Whitewater and Madison Trust investigations delayed or shut down.
President Bush is doing the right thing on both issues, and his timid Republican party members, in both Congressional Houses, should be happy he has a spine. Because they have, by and large, lost theirs. Granted, the House Republicans limited defections on the Iraq resolution, but a few of their number still jumped ship.
When they look back on this era, Republicans will see Bush as a steady, confident President, who did not shy from confrontation with a petty, vindictive, and probably temporary Democratic plurality in the House and Senate.
Ditto his stand on the Iraq war resolution in the House. Bush has served notice that he will make the Democrats enact a binding resolution, affecting funding, if they insist on attempting to usurp Executive Branch powers, albeit probably unconstitutionally.
As I glanced at this week's Economist cover, I saw that they have portrayed Bush, Rice and Cheney as "Besieged." I think this is a common tactic that the press uses when they do not agree with a politician- painting him or her as 'isolated,' 'besieged,' or 'out of touch.' In this case, however, I see all of Bush's stands as completely appropriate.
The war in Iraq is but a part of a religious conflict, begun by radical Islamists, that has been building since the middle of the inept Clinton administration's term. Gonzales' firing of the US attorneys is totally legal, whatever the cause. They serve at the pleasure of the President, period. Nobody in the mainstream press, save the Wall Street Journal, is reminding Americans of Slick Willie's wholesale firing of every one of the 93 sitting US District Attorney, in order to get the Whitewater and Madison Trust investigations delayed or shut down.
President Bush is doing the right thing on both issues, and his timid Republican party members, in both Congressional Houses, should be happy he has a spine. Because they have, by and large, lost theirs. Granted, the House Republicans limited defections on the Iraq resolution, but a few of their number still jumped ship.
When they look back on this era, Republicans will see Bush as a steady, confident President, who did not shy from confrontation with a petty, vindictive, and probably temporary Democratic plurality in the House and Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
