Friday, October 8, 2010
Probably because the issues keep bringing him down, especially in the polls.
Why won't Joe Manchin talk to Fox News or WSAZ about the federal investigation of his administration and Democratic Party chair Larry Puccio?
Why doesn't Joe Manchin want to talk about his adoption of a state version of cap and trade that will force layoffs of coal miners and raise our electric bills?
Why won't he talk about long term and steadfast opposition to the Obama policies that are killing our state? He just started opposing them when John Raese went up by six points in the polls.
Joe Manchin wants to talk about thirty seconds of tape. John Raese wants to talk about jobs and honesty in government.
Obama and his spokesmen had two interesting statements this week connected to the midterm elections.
First came the news that he will leave on November 5 instead of the 7th on a trip to India. Interesting idea, drive your party to defeat and then leave the country. I wonder if he will get any golf in over there?
Next came something more ominous. Obama promised "hand to hand combat" with Republicans after they make gains this November. Look for Congress to defund and box off his health care initiative and work to limit the reach of the EPA. Obama's reaction is interesting since his ideas and policies resulted in the congressional defeats. This year is a referendum on his left wing ideology and Americans are clearly not buying it. What is interesting is that Joe Biden said he would "strangle" Republicans who opposed their debt ridden budget proposals.
So the president and vice president are figuratively using the language of murder to describe their frustration with the GOP, the Tea Party, and the electorate for rejecting leftism. Of course they won't be literally killing Republicans, but their language reflects their frustration.
In 1995 when the GOP took over Congress, they skirmished with Clinton, but also hammered out welfare reform. In 2007, you saw Bush retrench and try to find ways to work with Congress (although this led to some negative outcomes). I seriously do not see Obama working with congressional Republicans in the remaining two years of his term. Like Andrew Johnson, he will more likely go off the deep end and become a bizarre spectacle, shunned by both parties.
Look for Hillary to get the Democratic nomination in 2012. Just my gut feeling.
‘Obama Says Vote Democrat’ Signs Get National Attention
Thousands of Signs Raising Thousands of Dollars, Eyebrows
CHARLESTON -- The calls and dollars are flooding in to the West Virginia Republican Party after national media took note yesterday of the ‘Obama Says Vote Democrat’ sign campaign in the Mountain State.
“It’s not a confusing message. Barack Obama wants you to vote for Joe Manchin, Nick Rahall and Mike Oliverio for Congress,” said West Virginia Republican Chair Mike Stuart. “He needs their help to make sure he can keep ObamaCare and raise our energy taxes. A vote for those guys is a vote for the liberal Obama-Pelosi Team.”
The signs and their message were highlighted in a report on the now-leading in the polls campaign of John Raese on the ABC World News with Diane Sawyer, and several other national outlets.
“You can tell the signs are working from the reaction they receive,” said Stuart. “West Virginia voters couldn’t stand Barack Obama two years ago. Imagine how mad they are now with unemployment doubled?”
Thursday, October 7, 2010
Reagrdless of your position on gay marriage, these people have to make you sick. They go to these solemn and grief filled occasions to chant against the military and gays, usually making more of a fuss and attracting more attention that they deserve.
It annoys me to hear these people described as "Baptist" or a "church" because they honestly are neither. They are a small club of hatred who will hopefully get what is coming to them for dishonoring our fighting men and women. I also wonder what their ideas on homosexuals really are. What is their alternative to recognizing their natural rights? I shudder to think.
This case bothers me, though. Personally, if I were at a loved one's funeral and they showed up, I would probably be arrested for assault. I'd violate the law and take whatever punishment that the law saw fit to mete out. However, I am not comfortable with the legal suppression of this group's right to free speech so long as they do not trespass on private property.
I hate the Westboroites just as much as I hate Nazis and Communists. All three of these groups seek to play on resentments and hatreds of some group of people somewhere to advance their agendas. What makes all three basically irrelevant is the fact that they can speak freely in our country without government sanction. If the government suppresses them, it makes them seem important enough to suppress and will win them a slight amount of credibility that they lacked before.
We do have a precedent for suppression of obnoxious speech, the theatre test. If the speech is tantamount to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre, then it can be limited. In other words, it must be proved that the speech creates a dangerous situation for the public. The Westboroites do not rise to that standard. If we do suppress their speech, where will it end? How can we define what political speech is permissible? Do we suppress the Westboroites while Nazis continue to speak their mind against Jews and minorities?
I reluctantly hope that the U. S. Supreme Court upholds the right to free speech. I hate the Westboroites, but believe that suppressing their speech is more dangerous to our system than allowing them to continue their obnoxious ways. I still hope someone beats the crap out of them everywhere they go, though.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
He also called the president an "ignoramus" and "economically illiterate."
The subject was Obama's refusal to extend Bush era tax cuts to the top 2% of wage earners. Some of his own economic advisors have said recently that this group has "taken their ball and gone home." In other words, since it will not profit them to invest and create jobs, they won't. To Limbaugh and economic conservatives, this is common sense that Obama either does not or will not understand.
Limbaugh has a knack for shaping the debate with occasional, well placed jabs. He is seeking to create a debate on the president's economic competence while trying to bait Obama (yet again) into attacking him while ignoring the real political opposition. Every time Obama attacks Limbaugh or Fox News, he confirms the perception that he has little interest in the liberties enumerated in the Constitution. He plays into the hands of conservatives by attacking the media and making himself look thin skinned and exasperated. Of course, that is because he IS thin skinned and easily exasperated.
Obama's Rolling Stone interview, where he chastises voters for following their self-interest and not him, was actually classical jackass behavior. Limbaugh is probably parroting what many former Obama voters have said since the interview was released.
Obama will react as Limbaugh expects, by attacking the conservatives and libertarians in the media and harming further the Democratic efforts to even remain relevant in Congress after this November. After next January, watch Congress push Obama into near irrelevance himself, a la Andrew Johnson.
Question is, will he blame George W. Bush for it all?
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
It failed to extend the Bush era tax cuts.
It failed to cap and end bailouts.
It failed to even grant tax relief to small businesses in a time of double digit unemployment.
It failed to address "our unsustainable national debt."
In other words, Congress failed the American people yet again. It is time to get Congress on the right track by returning incumbents that fight for us, like Shelley Moore Capito, getting rid of Obama's rubber stamps, like Nick Joe Rahall, and sending dedicated free market defenders like John Raese and David McKinley.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Last night, in Cumberland, a young woman in high school died. Her date, the driver, still clings perilously to life.
We don't like to think of mortality, but it remains a salient and permanent fact of life. It especially seems unnatural and perverse to think of the mortality of teenagers, otherwise so vibrant, energetic, and seemingly indestructible. Parents in particular shy away from consideration of the premature death of children. It is not supposed to be one of our divinely appointed tasks to bury our own, particularly when they are full of life and ready to take on whatever challenge the world presents.
But it is not life that is strong, powerful, and self-perpetuating. Life, regardless of what we wish, remains fragile and fickle. Death remains ever vigilant, waiting for its own opportunity to strike, waiting for us to lose focus for just a moment, so it can step in. This is why we the living must remain thankful to God for every day on this Earth that we have, not only our own lives, but those around us young and old. Just when we get confident that a long life is somehow obligated to us, events prove otherwise and remind us how quickly everything can change. We do have the reassurance from our faith that each soul thus removed goes to the bosom of Abraham to await the final day of judgment, but the loss of that direct connection with loved ones seems more painful than any consolation. We remember only after tragedies like this that we must keep our love long and our disagreements short. You don't want to be caught angry at a person, especially a loved one, when Death claims them from our midst.
We see no sense or meaning in the loss of a young life, but it should compel us to overlook trivial irritations that we see in others and hug our kids just a little tighter. We must not dwell upon the Sword of Damocles that hangs over us all, but we must show our thanks and gratitude for what life we are allowed by living and loving to the fullest extent possible.