As I have been listening these past few years to liberals bash the current President Bush, as they did Reagan, I have reflected on what it is about these two Presidents which inspires and arouses such rage on the left. I think what sets them apart from, say, Ford or Bush 41, is their principled stances and determination to use the legitimate power of their office as it was designed. In that, they are merely in the mold of FDR, Truman, and even, to some extent, Johnson.
When I was growing up, an saying that was fairly common went something like,
"Elect a Democratic President, and go to war."
Republican Senators of the 1960s were largely pacifists and isolationists. Much like their forbearers in the 1930s, in the face of FDR's steady move toward international engagement.
Which more or less prompted Ronald Reagan to note, when this former union president (SAG) switched parties to run for Governor of California and, then, President, as a Republican, that he was an FDR Democrat, but the party had moved away from FDR, while he, Reagan, had not abandoned the icon. And I think, now that this is perhaps a most important facet of Reagan, and Bush 43.
Reagan governed as he spoke. Like FDR, confidently, decisively, and some would say, imperiously and without concern for criticism. So does the current president Bush.
I now think that either one, Reagan or the younger George Bush, would be completely comfortable in the Democratic party of FDR. They espoused serious concern for basic citizen welfare, engagement in the world at large, and legitimate use of the presidential power to push for necessary international action. I think it's Scoop Jackson who is turning in his grave right now, not Frank Church.
No, today's Democrats are the neo-isolationist Republicans of yesteryear. The worm has turned.
That, I believe, is why Democrats now scream that Bush is wrong, or arrogant, or obstinate. To the point of planning various witch hunts and hoped-for impeachments for the next two years. Exercise of office is now seen to be questionable, ex post, if the other party decides they didn't like the results. Ironically, though, those Presidential behaviors are the hallmarks of their modern former-icon, FDR. Remember the NRA, court-packing, and the bank holiday? You think a modern Congress would not threaten impeachment over such actions today?
Of course, today's Democrats don't mention FDR or Truman much, anymore. Johnson has never been acknowledged for his style- only for the immense gravy train he started rolling with his "Great Society." No, today's Democrats hail, of course, Clinton. Carter was too milquetoast and, honestly, failed in Iran.
It leaves the left to decry anyone who would be a strong President, because they have been on the outside for 8 straight years, and 20 of 28 (Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Clinton, Bush 43, Bush 43). I'm not sure living Democrats can even remember as far back as Johnson, let alone Truman and FDR.
From this perspective, it's easy to see why the liberal Democrats so hate Bush 43. They simply have no stomach for a President who is confident of his stand on foreign affairs, or economic policy, and says so. It seems that such self-confidence is out of favor with the Democratic Party brought up on Clinton's endless public "triangulations."
Friday, February 2, 2007
Biden's "Clean" Remarks on YouTube
Here are the links to the two Biden clips regarding his most recent racial slurs.
This link is to the actual slur.
This link is a news piece repeating Biden's remarks while trying to extricate himself from the first slur. Frankly, his 'explanation' sounds totally lame and two-faced to me. The original remarks drip with condescension and minority pandering.
Enjoy!
This link is to the actual slur.
This link is a news piece repeating Biden's remarks while trying to extricate himself from the first slur. Frankly, his 'explanation' sounds totally lame and two-faced to me. The original remarks drip with condescension and minority pandering.
Enjoy!
Thursday, February 1, 2007
Are We All "Clean" Now, Joe?
Biden's recent remark on Baracka Obama Bin Baden's being young and 'clean' is the latest in what is already proving to be a Presidential season of stunningly hilarious proportions.
Mind you, Biden is an already-failed candidate from some years back. I believe that was the year he was discovered to be, and acknowledged being, a plagarist.
Now, the narrow-minded Senator from Delaware is trying his hand at racial slurs. This YouTube clip, here, captures Biden slurring Indians, 7-11 and Dunkin' Donuts. It's hysterical.
I found it while searching for the Obama clip. I have yet to locate the latter, but will post a link when I find it. I'm curious as to exactly what the context was.
As I mentioned with Chris Dodd, I don't really fully understand why Biden is doing this again. Doesn't he remember John Glenn nearly declaring personal bankruptcy over his campaign debts in either 1976 or 1980? This is expensive, serious stuff. How can Dodd and Biden possibly hope to compete financially with the likes of Giuliani, Clinton and McCain?
So, we have Hillary and Biden off on the wrong foot within weeks of beginning their campaigns. You just have to love American Presidential politics, don't you?
Mind you, Biden is an already-failed candidate from some years back. I believe that was the year he was discovered to be, and acknowledged being, a plagarist.
Now, the narrow-minded Senator from Delaware is trying his hand at racial slurs. This YouTube clip, here, captures Biden slurring Indians, 7-11 and Dunkin' Donuts. It's hysterical.
I found it while searching for the Obama clip. I have yet to locate the latter, but will post a link when I find it. I'm curious as to exactly what the context was.
As I mentioned with Chris Dodd, I don't really fully understand why Biden is doing this again. Doesn't he remember John Glenn nearly declaring personal bankruptcy over his campaign debts in either 1976 or 1980? This is expensive, serious stuff. How can Dodd and Biden possibly hope to compete financially with the likes of Giuliani, Clinton and McCain?
So, we have Hillary and Biden off on the wrong foot within weeks of beginning their campaigns. You just have to love American Presidential politics, don't you?
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Hillary's New Criteria for Presidential Actions
I thought I'd heard it all, until I heard Hillary's latest demand.
She insists that President Bush must 'clean up his own mess' by January 19, 2009. No ifs, ands or buts.
In Hillary's view, it now seems, all programs, problems, initiatives which a sitting President undertakes must be completed by his exit date. No exceptions.
Of course, she's not counting her husband's unfinished dalliances with early terrorism in the Mideast. Nor his passing along a fractured intelligence-gathering establishment and an ignored military.
But, no matter. The future begins today! And Hillary says that all issues currently open in the Bush administration must be closed and resolved before his successor sets foot off the rostrum on that January afternoon in 2009.
If this is what Hillary's spouting so early in the campaign, there's no limit to how inane and silly this election season/cycle is going to become. So, buckle in, grab the popcorn and a diet soda, and get ready for some primo free political entertainment from now until November, 2008.
She insists that President Bush must 'clean up his own mess' by January 19, 2009. No ifs, ands or buts.
In Hillary's view, it now seems, all programs, problems, initiatives which a sitting President undertakes must be completed by his exit date. No exceptions.
Of course, she's not counting her husband's unfinished dalliances with early terrorism in the Mideast. Nor his passing along a fractured intelligence-gathering establishment and an ignored military.
But, no matter. The future begins today! And Hillary says that all issues currently open in the Bush administration must be closed and resolved before his successor sets foot off the rostrum on that January afternoon in 2009.
If this is what Hillary's spouting so early in the campaign, there's no limit to how inane and silly this election season/cycle is going to become. So, buckle in, grab the popcorn and a diet soda, and get ready for some primo free political entertainment from now until November, 2008.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Liberals, Conservatives, and Caring for the Poor
Last week, newly-elected Senator Webb of Virginia did a lot of damage with his Democratic 'response' to President's State of the Union address. Webb has it wrong when he says that we have economic problems. This sort of continued negative spin on reality will result in bad policy.
Specifically, Webb alleged, like John Edwards during the 2004 Presidential campaign, that America is now two different countries, economically. They allege that part of America is poor, and growing poorer, not participating in the nation's healthy economic growth.
A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal by Arthur Brooks suggests why these Democrats view the situation in this manner. To wit, Brooks wrote,
"While just about everybody -- left and right -- agrees that poverty is unacceptable (although policy makers disagree as to whether a minimum wage hike would help or hurt the working poor), conservatives do not share liberals' concern about income inequality. According to the 2005 Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality, self-described liberals are more than twice as likely as conservatives to say income inequality in America is a "serious problem." And while 84% of liberals think the government should do more to reduce inequality, only 25% of conservatives agree.
This is empirical substantiation for the old cliché that conservatives just don't care about the poor, right? Wrong. In fact, the data do not tell us that conservatives are uncaring; they actually tell us that conservatives are optimists. Conservatives are relatively untroubled by inequality, and unsupportive of government income redistribution, because they believe the American economy provides private opportunities to succeed. Liberals are far more pessimistic than conservatives about the possibility of a better future for Americans of modest means.
Consider the evidence. While 92% of conservatives believe that hard work and perseverance can help a person overcome disadvantage, only 65% of liberals think so. This difference of opinion, contrary to the convention, is not because conservatives earn more money. In fact, lower-income conservatives are about twice as likely as upper-income liberals to say they think there's "a lot" of upward mobility in America. If a liberal and a conservative are exactly identical in income, education, sex, family situation, and race, the conservative will be 20 percentage points more likely than the liberal to say that hard work leads to success among the disadvantaged."
The data that Brooks cites matter profoundly. Both Webb and Edwards, and their ilk, are already biased to believe the worst about the economy and our society. They believe that income inequality is a major problem, and that nobody's individual efforts on their own behalf will lift them out of poverty.
Yet, we know from other studies, the exact ones which I do not have at hand to cite at the moment, that the income inequality numbers frequently cited by liberals are static, not dynamic. That is, they do not follow the same people for years, and find continued low incomes. Rather, they observe the lowest category of incomes, and, then, some years later, observe, 'yep, lookie there...some people are still poor." They simply assume the same people stayed in the same categories. In a word, pessimistic, as Brooks notes.
Nevermind that he Reagan revolution led to a broad middle group of politically-left-leaning voters to experience the economic fruits of lower taxes and healthy, low-inflation economic growth. It's as if those years never occurred, Reagan's recovery never happened, and nobody ever gets wealthier in America from hard work and diligence.
Conservatives do care about the poor. We simply feel that low tax rates, robust, low-inflationary growth, and fairness for all maximize everyone's opportunity for self-improvement and wealth-enhancement.
Specifically, Webb alleged, like John Edwards during the 2004 Presidential campaign, that America is now two different countries, economically. They allege that part of America is poor, and growing poorer, not participating in the nation's healthy economic growth.
A recent piece in the Wall Street Journal by Arthur Brooks suggests why these Democrats view the situation in this manner. To wit, Brooks wrote,
"While just about everybody -- left and right -- agrees that poverty is unacceptable (although policy makers disagree as to whether a minimum wage hike would help or hurt the working poor), conservatives do not share liberals' concern about income inequality. According to the 2005 Maxwell Poll on Civic Engagement and Inequality, self-described liberals are more than twice as likely as conservatives to say income inequality in America is a "serious problem." And while 84% of liberals think the government should do more to reduce inequality, only 25% of conservatives agree.
This is empirical substantiation for the old cliché that conservatives just don't care about the poor, right? Wrong. In fact, the data do not tell us that conservatives are uncaring; they actually tell us that conservatives are optimists. Conservatives are relatively untroubled by inequality, and unsupportive of government income redistribution, because they believe the American economy provides private opportunities to succeed. Liberals are far more pessimistic than conservatives about the possibility of a better future for Americans of modest means.
Consider the evidence. While 92% of conservatives believe that hard work and perseverance can help a person overcome disadvantage, only 65% of liberals think so. This difference of opinion, contrary to the convention, is not because conservatives earn more money. In fact, lower-income conservatives are about twice as likely as upper-income liberals to say they think there's "a lot" of upward mobility in America. If a liberal and a conservative are exactly identical in income, education, sex, family situation, and race, the conservative will be 20 percentage points more likely than the liberal to say that hard work leads to success among the disadvantaged."
The data that Brooks cites matter profoundly. Both Webb and Edwards, and their ilk, are already biased to believe the worst about the economy and our society. They believe that income inequality is a major problem, and that nobody's individual efforts on their own behalf will lift them out of poverty.
Yet, we know from other studies, the exact ones which I do not have at hand to cite at the moment, that the income inequality numbers frequently cited by liberals are static, not dynamic. That is, they do not follow the same people for years, and find continued low incomes. Rather, they observe the lowest category of incomes, and, then, some years later, observe, 'yep, lookie there...some people are still poor." They simply assume the same people stayed in the same categories. In a word, pessimistic, as Brooks notes.
Nevermind that he Reagan revolution led to a broad middle group of politically-left-leaning voters to experience the economic fruits of lower taxes and healthy, low-inflation economic growth. It's as if those years never occurred, Reagan's recovery never happened, and nobody ever gets wealthier in America from hard work and diligence.
Conservatives do care about the poor. We simply feel that low tax rates, robust, low-inflationary growth, and fairness for all maximize everyone's opportunity for self-improvement and wealth-enhancement.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Edifice Complexes
I recently watched a program on the History channel describing Nero's burning of Rome, to clear way for his new pleasure palace. He only lived in it for about six months, before being deposed and executed.
Consider Washington, D.C.- our country's "hack central." How are our Congressional office buildings named? Has any Representative or Senator ever asked you for naming ideas?
The building names are all incestuous pats on the backs by Representatives and Senators to themselves - Dirksen (from my old state and, by the way, district, too), Hart, and Russell for the Senate. Rayburn, Cannon and Longworth for the House.
Would any of us taxpayers name these large, expensive buildings in Washington for the hacks we had to send up to the Hill?
Why aren't they named, for example, Hale, Aldrin, Perry, Sheridan, Morse, Edison, or Marshall? Named for great Americans, instead of forgettable hacks. Or for posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor winners? Men and women who truly sacrificed for our country, as recognized by Congress. How fitting, no?
Who even recalls Longworth or Cannon? Rayburn was the consummate (Texan) trough-feeding House hack...um......Speaker.
It's just unconscionable. Mark my words, regardless of her record or brevity of service, Pelosi will get a shrine, too, just for being the first female 'First Hack' of the House. Instead of, perhaps, Molly Pitcher, Florence Nightingale, or the first female cabinet secretary. It's just disgraceful, and I mean that in a very non-partisan manner.
Consider Washington, D.C.- our country's "hack central." How are our Congressional office buildings named? Has any Representative or Senator ever asked you for naming ideas?
The building names are all incestuous pats on the backs by Representatives and Senators to themselves - Dirksen (from my old state and, by the way, district, too), Hart, and Russell for the Senate. Rayburn, Cannon and Longworth for the House.
Would any of us taxpayers name these large, expensive buildings in Washington for the hacks we had to send up to the Hill?
Why aren't they named, for example, Hale, Aldrin, Perry, Sheridan, Morse, Edison, or Marshall? Named for great Americans, instead of forgettable hacks. Or for posthumous Congressional Medal of Honor winners? Men and women who truly sacrificed for our country, as recognized by Congress. How fitting, no?
Who even recalls Longworth or Cannon? Rayburn was the consummate (Texan) trough-feeding House hack...um......Speaker.
It's just unconscionable. Mark my words, regardless of her record or brevity of service, Pelosi will get a shrine, too, just for being the first female 'First Hack' of the House. Instead of, perhaps, Molly Pitcher, Florence Nightingale, or the first female cabinet secretary. It's just disgraceful, and I mean that in a very non-partisan manner.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Flawed Presidential Choices: Same As It Ever Was
As more hapless Democrats jumped into the Presidential pool this weekend, so as not to be left behind, I reflected on the candidates for whom I've voted in the past.
To my way of thinking, no candidate for whom I've voted has ever had my unqualified trust, confidence, or enthusiasm. It's always been a 'lesser of two or three evils' thing.
It started when I first voted for Jimmy Carter. Talk about mistakes! I thought he was smarter than Ford, and, being young, was sucked in and gulled by his naive promises of egalitarianism. Instead, we got the shame of the Iranian episode- 444 days of it, was it not? And a Chief Executive who insisted on scheduling the White House tennis courts himself, and brought with a small-minded crew of charlatans, the likes of whom we only saw again carrying Bill Clinton's (carpet) bags.
Rather than trust either Reagan, or Carter, I voted for John Anderson. He was a Representative from my home state, a likable, sensible guy. And, at the time, I thought it worthwhile to endorse a third-party option. Did I believe any of these candidates were the 'best' in the Republic? Never.
Same with 1984. I was pleased with Reagan, and my vote was a no-brainer. But happy? No. Same in 1988. I liked Bush, and I despised and distrusted Dukakis. But I found myself saddened to think that these two were the best we could produce for the most influential free nation on earth.
Dole v. Clinton? How sad can you get? A guy whose motto is, "I've waited long enough and fed at the Senate trough all these years, it's my turn," versus a self-admitted philanderer who used his high office to obstruct justice. How much worse could it possibly get?
Well, you get the idea. I don't think we ever get a choice between two really 'great' candidates. And that's not about to change this year, either.
The Democrats offer up as many flavors of minorities as they can muster. I'm enjoying the uneasy predicament of many of my liberal acquaintances and friends, as they dither,
'Gee.....vote for the black, or vote for the female.....or the spanish-speaking guy?....all are minorities, in their way.....but...but.....I have to choose!......what will I do?'
Then you have their reject pile- Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and maybe even the 'ol original Clinton. All feel they were wronged, or deserve another chance, or, in Clinton's case, simply don't get it that 8 years of anyone is more than enough nowadays.
The Republicans, while focused on experience and character, rather than unidimensional victimhood (a/k/a minority membership), still can't seem to produce a really complete, trustworthy conservative.
McCain is not so bright, too self-impressed and pompous, and way too 'moderate' to be trusted. Giuliani is also a good deal more liberal than advertised, but at least he's very experienced in actually making government work on a large scale, plus has major chops for crisis management.
Romney is also an experienced manager and leader, but has already drunk the Kool-Aid on health care reform. And he had so much promise!
Which leads me to my conclusion. It's not really the program a President espouses that matters. Even Clinton and Carter couldn't ram their agendas through their own Houses and Senates. Even the candidate's position on topics like abortion or stem cell research pales in comparison to running the Federal government.
No, what the American people tend to do is elect the person whom they believe has the character, fortitude, and maybe experience, to effectively handle the next unexpected, but anticipated, unknown crisis.
And in that sense, we've been pretty well-served. George Bush has shown remarkable skill and aplomb at handling his crisis. So did Reagan. Clinton didn't do so well with his- the Monica affair. Carter failed abysmally with both energy policy and Iran. But, on balance, the country tends to err on the side of typically choosing the more appropriate candidate in any given year.
And given our challenging times, I think that will be true in 2008, as well. So, no Obama bin Baden, and no Hillary. America is ready to elect a black or a woman, but not "that" black, nor "that" woman. One is too inexperienced, the other simply carries too much weird baggage of her own making, plus has absolutely no executive experience on her long, lawyerly resume.
It should be a fun-filled, enjoyable next 22 months of free political presidential comedy.
To my way of thinking, no candidate for whom I've voted has ever had my unqualified trust, confidence, or enthusiasm. It's always been a 'lesser of two or three evils' thing.
It started when I first voted for Jimmy Carter. Talk about mistakes! I thought he was smarter than Ford, and, being young, was sucked in and gulled by his naive promises of egalitarianism. Instead, we got the shame of the Iranian episode- 444 days of it, was it not? And a Chief Executive who insisted on scheduling the White House tennis courts himself, and brought with a small-minded crew of charlatans, the likes of whom we only saw again carrying Bill Clinton's (carpet) bags.
Rather than trust either Reagan, or Carter, I voted for John Anderson. He was a Representative from my home state, a likable, sensible guy. And, at the time, I thought it worthwhile to endorse a third-party option. Did I believe any of these candidates were the 'best' in the Republic? Never.
Same with 1984. I was pleased with Reagan, and my vote was a no-brainer. But happy? No. Same in 1988. I liked Bush, and I despised and distrusted Dukakis. But I found myself saddened to think that these two were the best we could produce for the most influential free nation on earth.
Dole v. Clinton? How sad can you get? A guy whose motto is, "I've waited long enough and fed at the Senate trough all these years, it's my turn," versus a self-admitted philanderer who used his high office to obstruct justice. How much worse could it possibly get?
Well, you get the idea. I don't think we ever get a choice between two really 'great' candidates. And that's not about to change this year, either.
The Democrats offer up as many flavors of minorities as they can muster. I'm enjoying the uneasy predicament of many of my liberal acquaintances and friends, as they dither,
'Gee.....vote for the black, or vote for the female.....or the spanish-speaking guy?....all are minorities, in their way.....but...but.....I have to choose!......what will I do?'
Then you have their reject pile- Kerry, Gore, Edwards, and maybe even the 'ol original Clinton. All feel they were wronged, or deserve another chance, or, in Clinton's case, simply don't get it that 8 years of anyone is more than enough nowadays.
The Republicans, while focused on experience and character, rather than unidimensional victimhood (a/k/a minority membership), still can't seem to produce a really complete, trustworthy conservative.
McCain is not so bright, too self-impressed and pompous, and way too 'moderate' to be trusted. Giuliani is also a good deal more liberal than advertised, but at least he's very experienced in actually making government work on a large scale, plus has major chops for crisis management.
Romney is also an experienced manager and leader, but has already drunk the Kool-Aid on health care reform. And he had so much promise!
Which leads me to my conclusion. It's not really the program a President espouses that matters. Even Clinton and Carter couldn't ram their agendas through their own Houses and Senates. Even the candidate's position on topics like abortion or stem cell research pales in comparison to running the Federal government.
No, what the American people tend to do is elect the person whom they believe has the character, fortitude, and maybe experience, to effectively handle the next unexpected, but anticipated, unknown crisis.
And in that sense, we've been pretty well-served. George Bush has shown remarkable skill and aplomb at handling his crisis. So did Reagan. Clinton didn't do so well with his- the Monica affair. Carter failed abysmally with both energy policy and Iran. But, on balance, the country tends to err on the side of typically choosing the more appropriate candidate in any given year.
And given our challenging times, I think that will be true in 2008, as well. So, no Obama bin Baden, and no Hillary. America is ready to elect a black or a woman, but not "that" black, nor "that" woman. One is too inexperienced, the other simply carries too much weird baggage of her own making, plus has absolutely no executive experience on her long, lawyerly resume.
It should be a fun-filled, enjoyable next 22 months of free political presidential comedy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
