But not victory. Whatever you do, do NOT call it victory.
Also. praise the Iraqi people and the result, but never mention the foresight of the man who caused all the wrong in the history of the world, President George W. Bush.
This had to be a tough moment for Obama. He opposed the war. He never credits Bush for any good. Yet politically, he will try and make this success his own without alienating the antiwar crowd that increasingly tires of him.
Obama has left the Middle East a more dangerous place. By refusing to work with Iraq to even keep some forces in place to watch and cow Iran, the Obama Administration preferred to pull all forces out. This leaves a vacuum of power that Iran will try to fill one way or another.
Regardless of anything that Obama or Ron Paul says, Iran's mullahocracy has revolutionary ambitions for the region. As it inches closer to a doomsday bomb, American influence has gone into full retreat. We left no forces in Iran's most hated rival. We have failed to support Israel, our most reliable ally. What is it, exactly, that we plan to do besides blowing up a few facilities, supposedly in secret?
They also have had one of our most advanced pieces of military equipment in their custody for several days now. When that happened 200 years ago, men volunteered to risk their lives to blow it up. We are too impotent to do anything today?
We left Iran the initiative. Where they take it is apparently up to them.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Ann Coulter Could Decide the GOP Nomination
In the conservative world there are aircraft carriers, submarines, destroyers . . . and then there are battleships.
Aircraft carriers project power hundreds of miles away in small or big chunks, whichever you prefer. Submarines stealthily ride beneath the waves, attacking from beneath, from where you least expect it.
Destroyers sit on top of the water, but mainly escort the bigger guys and have little pop by themselves.
Then there are battleships.
Maybe the navy decommissioned them, but they are alive and well in the conservative world. They are large, loud, and destructive. They also impress with the range and strength of their firepower. You can't miss the arrival of one, or its intent. Battleships change the game.
Ann Coulter is a conservative battleship. She has trained her guns on Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich has ranged himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, latest of about ten. Coulter is one of his biggest threats.
The conservative base reads Ann Coulter. She may have less influence in the mainstream world, but she packs a major punch within strongly conservative ranks. When she supports Romney and broadsides Newt, she cannot be dismissed as squishy, or a RINO, or whatever the buzzword is these days. Newt's support is precisely what she is gunning down. Here are her last two commentaries for Human Events.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48161
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48005
And, yes, Coulter knows exactly what she is implying with the phrase "tiny stick." She is a battleship of the conservative movement and the shells have been fired. Don't expect them to cease any time soon.
Aircraft carriers project power hundreds of miles away in small or big chunks, whichever you prefer. Submarines stealthily ride beneath the waves, attacking from beneath, from where you least expect it.
Destroyers sit on top of the water, but mainly escort the bigger guys and have little pop by themselves.
Then there are battleships.
Maybe the navy decommissioned them, but they are alive and well in the conservative world. They are large, loud, and destructive. They also impress with the range and strength of their firepower. You can't miss the arrival of one, or its intent. Battleships change the game.
Ann Coulter is a conservative battleship. She has trained her guns on Newt Gingrich.
Gingrich has ranged himself as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney, latest of about ten. Coulter is one of his biggest threats.
The conservative base reads Ann Coulter. She may have less influence in the mainstream world, but she packs a major punch within strongly conservative ranks. When she supports Romney and broadsides Newt, she cannot be dismissed as squishy, or a RINO, or whatever the buzzword is these days. Newt's support is precisely what she is gunning down. Here are her last two commentaries for Human Events.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48161
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48005
And, yes, Coulter knows exactly what she is implying with the phrase "tiny stick." She is a battleship of the conservative movement and the shells have been fired. Don't expect them to cease any time soon.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
David Cameron Makes a Stand
Prime Minister David Cameron took a stand for the United Kingdom this week. He decided that Britain would not march happily with the rest of Europe into the Fourth Reich.
Germany is willing to bankroll plans to save the Euro if member nations cede sovereign control over fiscal policy. In most people's experience, those that pay the piper call the tune. It is not a slam on Deutschland to say that their contributions would give them reason to act as though they were uber alles. It's not that they are evil or power mad, but it would be a reasonable and predictable position to take. Britain vetoed the plan as presented and will not take part in any tightening of the European Union.
Britain traditionally ranges itself against any power looking to dominate Europe. Germany, peacefully, and maybe even altruistically, is setting itself up to do just that.
The best policy would be to allow the Euro to disappear as the failed experiment that it is.
Germany is willing to bankroll plans to save the Euro if member nations cede sovereign control over fiscal policy. In most people's experience, those that pay the piper call the tune. It is not a slam on Deutschland to say that their contributions would give them reason to act as though they were uber alles. It's not that they are evil or power mad, but it would be a reasonable and predictable position to take. Britain vetoed the plan as presented and will not take part in any tightening of the European Union.
Britain traditionally ranges itself against any power looking to dominate Europe. Germany, peacefully, and maybe even altruistically, is setting itself up to do just that.
The best policy would be to allow the Euro to disappear as the failed experiment that it is.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
A Lowes Down Dirty Shame
Count me as one of those who does not think that the "All American Muslim" program on TLC is as grave a threat to Western Civilization as some have made it out to be. Sure it does not present the fact that Islamists have a political agenda over and above the faith of Muslims. But I'd rather not see the Westboro cult get mentioned in a show about mainline Protestants, either.
In all honestly, Lawrence of Arabia makes a stronger case for Islam than All American Muslim ever could.
Some companies, such as Lowes, pulled their ads from the show. In America, that is your right. You do not have to pay for a commodity. They made a business decision, maybe a good one, maybe not, but they made it.
Now Lowes is actually facing a lawsuit by a California state senator demanding that the company reinstate the ads and apologize to the Muslim community.
Honestly, this foolishness does not help the cause of Muslims who want to improve their image. Freedom to speak and spend when you want are rights. There is no right to not be offended by crass statements, mockery, due to the faith that you happen to carry. Certainly no right exists to force advertisers to support a television program.
Very interesting in comparison to the crusade of many in the media and elsewhere against Tim Tebow.
In all honestly, Lawrence of Arabia makes a stronger case for Islam than All American Muslim ever could.
Some companies, such as Lowes, pulled their ads from the show. In America, that is your right. You do not have to pay for a commodity. They made a business decision, maybe a good one, maybe not, but they made it.
Now Lowes is actually facing a lawsuit by a California state senator demanding that the company reinstate the ads and apologize to the Muslim community.
Honestly, this foolishness does not help the cause of Muslims who want to improve their image. Freedom to speak and spend when you want are rights. There is no right to not be offended by crass statements, mockery, due to the faith that you happen to carry. Certainly no right exists to force advertisers to support a television program.
Very interesting in comparison to the crusade of many in the media and elsewhere against Tim Tebow.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Frustration With the Field
Election season is almost upon us. The Republican Party offered up a large and varied field for consideration, which has been whittled down one by one.
I have to admit. Although I see considerable talent and experience in the original field, the country also saw an appalling lack of preparation. Many in the Republican field ran as if they had never witnessed a presidential election before.
We knew that debating in the fall might have something of an impact on the election. Why on earth did Rick Perry stumble into these competitions so woefully unprepared? He might have made a fairly good president, because the man is not as stupid as his detractors want to say. However, Perry needed a team to help him learn to parry rhetorically. He also needed to come up with a better way to defend his departures from conservatism in some way other than calling most of us "heartless."
I really liked Herman Cain. The man had a magnetism that filled a room. People instinctively liked him and he gave the impression that he liked you too, and had a good sense of humor to boot. Some say that sexual harassment allegations sank him. Only partly true. His decline in the polls also coincided with a sudden inability to answer any question that departed from his basic understanding of economics. Our world remains a dangerous place. It requires an American president with an already formed vision of how he wants to deal with its problems. Cain rarely gave an impression that he considered these problems very often.
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney come to the table with a solid understanding of foreign and domestic issues already in place. We have come to understand that the pitfalls of both are polar opposite. We don't want "world-historical Newt." We don't want the ultimate technocrat Romney. We need a president with energy, boldness, and focus.
We also do not want another Dear Leader. The Republican nominee must emphasize teamwork in his campaign and Cabinet. He cannot portray himself as the answer to all questions and the source of all solutions. But he must prove to us that he can assemble the team that can redirect our nation down the proper path, restoring prosperity and respect around the world.
I have to admit. Although I see considerable talent and experience in the original field, the country also saw an appalling lack of preparation. Many in the Republican field ran as if they had never witnessed a presidential election before.
We knew that debating in the fall might have something of an impact on the election. Why on earth did Rick Perry stumble into these competitions so woefully unprepared? He might have made a fairly good president, because the man is not as stupid as his detractors want to say. However, Perry needed a team to help him learn to parry rhetorically. He also needed to come up with a better way to defend his departures from conservatism in some way other than calling most of us "heartless."
I really liked Herman Cain. The man had a magnetism that filled a room. People instinctively liked him and he gave the impression that he liked you too, and had a good sense of humor to boot. Some say that sexual harassment allegations sank him. Only partly true. His decline in the polls also coincided with a sudden inability to answer any question that departed from his basic understanding of economics. Our world remains a dangerous place. It requires an American president with an already formed vision of how he wants to deal with its problems. Cain rarely gave an impression that he considered these problems very often.
Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney come to the table with a solid understanding of foreign and domestic issues already in place. We have come to understand that the pitfalls of both are polar opposite. We don't want "world-historical Newt." We don't want the ultimate technocrat Romney. We need a president with energy, boldness, and focus.
We also do not want another Dear Leader. The Republican nominee must emphasize teamwork in his campaign and Cabinet. He cannot portray himself as the answer to all questions and the source of all solutions. But he must prove to us that he can assemble the team that can redirect our nation down the proper path, restoring prosperity and respect around the world.
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Youth In Misery
Press Release: “Youth Misery Index” Exposes Worsening Economic Hardship for Young Americans
Permanent link
To calculate the index, Young America’s Foundation adds together youth unemployment, average graduating student debt (in thousands), and national debt per capita (in thousands). At no point in recent history has life been harder for America’s young people.
The Youth Misery Index represents a three-pronged attack on young Americans’ financial security—educational debt from their past, unemployment in the present, and a future plagued by the burden of massive government debt.
Youth unemployment is at 17.4 percent—one of the highest levels since World War II. Average graduating student debt has reached a record-breaking $26,300. National debt per capita is $46,900—the highest ever. Add it up, and the Youth Misery Index comes out to 90.6 (17.4 + 26.3 + 46.9 = 90.6). What does this number mean? Like Jimmy Carter’s Misery Index, the YMI uncovers some real threats to our nation’s prosperity.
As explained at YouthMiseryIndex.com, all three indicators of the Youth Misery Index have gone up, at least in part, thanks to government intervention and out-of-control spending. Few things are more earth-shattering to a young person than being stuck with no job and tens of thousands in college debt. As the Youth Misery Index rises, look for the Obama administration’s youth support to continue to plummet (as reported by the New York Times).
Young America’s Foundation’s Ron Meyer, who developed the Youth Misery Index with support from Nathan Harden, a Novak Fellow with the Phillips Foundation, said, “As a recent college graduate myself, I’ve seen the harsh realities of the Youth Misery Index. Young people can and must be the catalyst to shock the establishment by advocating for the halt of big government. If we do nothing, we can kiss the American Dream goodbye."
For more information on the index or to request an interview, please call Ron Meyer at (800) USA-1776.
###
Thursday, December 1, 2011
The Fourth Reich
Europe has been given ten days to come up with a plan to save itself.
Any plan that will save the tattered Eurozone will require massive infusions of capital from one of the few fiscally responsible nations left in the Western world, Germany.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has named the price of German action. She wants member nations to cede sovereignty over financial affairs to a central commission. On the surface, this could be the only possible way to save the unified currency.
However, it would possibly bring horrific consequences. Germany will not hand out money and then step back. as the United States would. The price of Germany's help would be German control, at least indirectly. This is not meant to muster Nazi overtones. Merkel is more like Otto von Bismarck. She wants to protect Germany by stabilizing Europe with a German vision, not overturn civilization.
But each incarnation of a German Reich usually ends with violence. Each one, from the Holy Roman Empire to Hitler, drew upon a sense of a German mission to secure civilization through exercising order in Europe. European nations do not want German domination in any form and will fight if pushed.
The plans on the table call, whether they know it or not, for a Fourth Reich. Every Reich, no matter how well-intentioned, ends in war. European bureaucrats need to remember that.
Any plan that will save the tattered Eurozone will require massive infusions of capital from one of the few fiscally responsible nations left in the Western world, Germany.
Chancellor Angela Merkel has named the price of German action. She wants member nations to cede sovereignty over financial affairs to a central commission. On the surface, this could be the only possible way to save the unified currency.
However, it would possibly bring horrific consequences. Germany will not hand out money and then step back. as the United States would. The price of Germany's help would be German control, at least indirectly. This is not meant to muster Nazi overtones. Merkel is more like Otto von Bismarck. She wants to protect Germany by stabilizing Europe with a German vision, not overturn civilization.
But each incarnation of a German Reich usually ends with violence. Each one, from the Holy Roman Empire to Hitler, drew upon a sense of a German mission to secure civilization through exercising order in Europe. European nations do not want German domination in any form and will fight if pushed.
The plans on the table call, whether they know it or not, for a Fourth Reich. Every Reich, no matter how well-intentioned, ends in war. European bureaucrats need to remember that.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Pattern of Tyranny: Hugo Chavez, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, Bill Clinton
What do each of those individuals have in common? Each of them over the past several years has been associated with term limits abolition for presidents.
Hugo Chavez already has the coveted "president for life" job. Argentinian President Fernandez de Kirchner this week seemed to float a trial balloon in her country about amending their "outdated" constitution. Bill Clinton suggested that the term limit amendment be lifted in this country recently.
The executive branch has an advantage over the legislative in this key area. At the most, every eight years, the executive gets swept clean of its political officers. Even presidents from the same party tend to want to have their own people, avoiding the messes caused when John Adams and Harry Truman held over officials. Turnover in office reduces the amount of corruption that can settle in.
Congress operates without term limits. Invariably, human nature takes over when a person in power gets comfortable. They cut corners, ignore rules here and there, and probably are as surprised as anyone else if they end up scandalized.
President Washington feared more than most the concept of "president for life." He saw it as upsetting the balance established between the branches of government, leading to the establishment of what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority." The president has the most to gain by somehow purchasing or otherwise appeasing the majority at the expense of the minority. And the majority rarely see infringements upon their rights.
Presidential term limits are necessary for the continuance of good government. Congress should consider them as well.
Hugo Chavez already has the coveted "president for life" job. Argentinian President Fernandez de Kirchner this week seemed to float a trial balloon in her country about amending their "outdated" constitution. Bill Clinton suggested that the term limit amendment be lifted in this country recently.
The executive branch has an advantage over the legislative in this key area. At the most, every eight years, the executive gets swept clean of its political officers. Even presidents from the same party tend to want to have their own people, avoiding the messes caused when John Adams and Harry Truman held over officials. Turnover in office reduces the amount of corruption that can settle in.
Congress operates without term limits. Invariably, human nature takes over when a person in power gets comfortable. They cut corners, ignore rules here and there, and probably are as surprised as anyone else if they end up scandalized.
President Washington feared more than most the concept of "president for life." He saw it as upsetting the balance established between the branches of government, leading to the establishment of what Madison called "the tyranny of the majority." The president has the most to gain by somehow purchasing or otherwise appeasing the majority at the expense of the minority. And the majority rarely see infringements upon their rights.
Presidential term limits are necessary for the continuance of good government. Congress should consider them as well.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
New York Governor Faces Daunting Threat By His Own Party
The Governor of New York has tossed down a challenge at any and all. He will not raise taxes and he will support Marcellus Shale drilling. Cuomo publicly lashed out, ridiculing those who felt that
Andrew Cuomo, son of Democratic Party legend Mario, faces powerful attacks from public employees' unions, factions of his own Democratic Party, and a left wing "workers' party" the supports everything but work.
The Democratic Party in many parts of the nation faces a serious identity crisis. In places such as New York, the old liberal establishment finds itself at odds with the New Left. Most of the time, liberalism succumbs quietly to the shrill and mindless "mike check" mentality. In doing so, they wave good-bye to meaningful dialogue and the jobs that could be saved through tax and regulation relief. Governor Cuomo will have none of the Left. He seems to stand ready to strike back.
Thankfully, West Virginia Democrats, at least the majority anyway, have successfully resisted the burrowing of the left. They do not support business reforms as stridently as the state needs, but they have not kowtowed to Obamunism either. Democrats in the Mountain State are not swimming to shore, but they do continue to tread water, unwilling to put the weights desired of the left on the state's ankles.
Democrats need to take their party back.
Andrew Cuomo, son of Democratic Party legend Mario, faces powerful attacks from public employees' unions, factions of his own Democratic Party, and a left wing "workers' party" the supports everything but work.
The Democratic Party in many parts of the nation faces a serious identity crisis. In places such as New York, the old liberal establishment finds itself at odds with the New Left. Most of the time, liberalism succumbs quietly to the shrill and mindless "mike check" mentality. In doing so, they wave good-bye to meaningful dialogue and the jobs that could be saved through tax and regulation relief. Governor Cuomo will have none of the Left. He seems to stand ready to strike back.
Thankfully, West Virginia Democrats, at least the majority anyway, have successfully resisted the burrowing of the left. They do not support business reforms as stridently as the state needs, but they have not kowtowed to Obamunism either. Democrats in the Mountain State are not swimming to shore, but they do continue to tread water, unwilling to put the weights desired of the left on the state's ankles.
Democrats need to take their party back.
Friday, November 25, 2011
Mitt Romney Needs to Abandon the Thomas E. Dewey Strategy
What do you think of when you think of Mitt Romney? Certainly he is intelligent, accomplished, organized, and, in a way, looks like a president. Conservative ideology aside, we would have no reason to think that Romney could not be sound in office.
But is Romney inspiring? Does Romney exude what George H. W. Bush derided as "that vision thing?"
There lies the problem.
Romney's rope-a-dope style in the primary season may win him the nomination as the not-Romneys battle it out. Compared to most of the pack, he looks far better informed and ready to govern. Compared to Newt Gingrich, he definitely looks more predictable and, some say, safe. Unfortunately for Romney, that could have been said about Neville Chamberlain versus Winston Churchill in 1938.
Should Romney win the nomination, and that is a strong possibility, he must cease the pleasant little boat trip of a campaign that he has captained so far. His latest debate spawned criticisms of his "going through the motions" and resorting to platitudes. This will not do against a campaign in 2012 that promises to be one of the most vicious in American history.
Thomas Dewey took the field against Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey altered his strategy after accusations of going too aggressively against Franklin Roosevelt. That was a mistake in that FDR was a sick old hero, whereas Truman was somewhat unpopular.
Whatever accolades Truman deserves for identifying Soviet evil early on, he must be remembered as a bare-knuckled liar of a campaigner. FDR's successor got everything that he wanted out of the initially hesitant to spend GOP Congress in 1947. The Marshall Plan, National Security Act of 1947, aid to Greece and Turkey, all this and more came at the behest of Truman. Few presidents have gotten more out of their own party. But Truman, seeing Dewey as a likeable opponent, campaigned against the "do-nothing Congress."
Dewey responded by ignoring Truman and playing prevent defense, which in football usually translates to preventing the win. Truman had very low popularity with all voters and even faced major splits in his own party. The liberal Louisville Courier-Journal summed up Dewey's campaign in the following fashion:
No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.
If you didn't already know....Truman won in 1948.
To be fair, Romney has been much more specific than Dewey was. However, he needs to show spark. Romney, if he wins nomination, needs that moment where Americans see that he can intelligently rise to the occasion. Ronald Reagan's famous 1980 microphone moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE) is an example.
It is still a long way to the end, and Gingrich is showing staying power and intellectual command. But if Romney should win, he needs to ignore the Dewey gameplan and go on the attack.
But is Romney inspiring? Does Romney exude what George H. W. Bush derided as "that vision thing?"
There lies the problem.
Romney's rope-a-dope style in the primary season may win him the nomination as the not-Romneys battle it out. Compared to most of the pack, he looks far better informed and ready to govern. Compared to Newt Gingrich, he definitely looks more predictable and, some say, safe. Unfortunately for Romney, that could have been said about Neville Chamberlain versus Winston Churchill in 1938.
Should Romney win the nomination, and that is a strong possibility, he must cease the pleasant little boat trip of a campaign that he has captained so far. His latest debate spawned criticisms of his "going through the motions" and resorting to platitudes. This will not do against a campaign in 2012 that promises to be one of the most vicious in American history.
Thomas Dewey took the field against Harry Truman in 1948. Dewey altered his strategy after accusations of going too aggressively against Franklin Roosevelt. That was a mistake in that FDR was a sick old hero, whereas Truman was somewhat unpopular.
Whatever accolades Truman deserves for identifying Soviet evil early on, he must be remembered as a bare-knuckled liar of a campaigner. FDR's successor got everything that he wanted out of the initially hesitant to spend GOP Congress in 1947. The Marshall Plan, National Security Act of 1947, aid to Greece and Turkey, all this and more came at the behest of Truman. Few presidents have gotten more out of their own party. But Truman, seeing Dewey as a likeable opponent, campaigned against the "do-nothing Congress."
Dewey responded by ignoring Truman and playing prevent defense, which in football usually translates to preventing the win. Truman had very low popularity with all voters and even faced major splits in his own party. The liberal Louisville Courier-Journal summed up Dewey's campaign in the following fashion:
No presidential candidate in the future will be so inept that four of his major speeches can be boiled down to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.
If you didn't already know....Truman won in 1948.
To be fair, Romney has been much more specific than Dewey was. However, he needs to show spark. Romney, if he wins nomination, needs that moment where Americans see that he can intelligently rise to the occasion. Ronald Reagan's famous 1980 microphone moment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO2_49TycdE) is an example.
It is still a long way to the end, and Gingrich is showing staying power and intellectual command. But if Romney should win, he needs to ignore the Dewey gameplan and go on the attack.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Happy Thanksgiving
We are thankful for God, family, country, and all of the men and women who risk all every day to protect us.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Gingrich Looking Past Primaries?
Newt Gingrich, in last night's debates, seemed to start positioning himself against not only his fellow Republicans, but also the incumbent president. The former Speaker of the House strongly advocated for a "humane" immigration policy that eases the enforcement of laws on long term illegals. His rationale lay in preventing family break-ups.
Gingrich runs the risk of losing the conservative support built over the past several weeks, following the trend of Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain when each fumbled in the right wing red zone. It lends credence to the idea that Gingrich actually lies more in the center than even Mitt Romney and opens the door further to criticism of his other non-conservative moves in the past.
It also opens the door for Gingrich to expand his support into different groups, especially if he wins the nomination. The Hispanic community is no monolithic creature. It divides along national and generational lines. Gingrich's move tactically targets Hispanics whose social conservatism could bring them into the GOP camp, or at least convince them to elect some Republicans. The family first mantra will attract Roman Catholic and other religious voters who have been pushing this line in many issues for decades.
The Republican Party itself has no consensus on all immigration policy ideas. Gingrich's gamble will cost him support now, but would definitely broaden his appeal if nominated.
Gingrich runs the risk of losing the conservative support built over the past several weeks, following the trend of Michelle Bachman, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain when each fumbled in the right wing red zone. It lends credence to the idea that Gingrich actually lies more in the center than even Mitt Romney and opens the door further to criticism of his other non-conservative moves in the past.
It also opens the door for Gingrich to expand his support into different groups, especially if he wins the nomination. The Hispanic community is no monolithic creature. It divides along national and generational lines. Gingrich's move tactically targets Hispanics whose social conservatism could bring them into the GOP camp, or at least convince them to elect some Republicans. The family first mantra will attract Roman Catholic and other religious voters who have been pushing this line in many issues for decades.
The Republican Party itself has no consensus on all immigration policy ideas. Gingrich's gamble will cost him support now, but would definitely broaden his appeal if nominated.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
What Is Joe Manchin's Endgame?
It's a good question.
Unlike many Democratic lawmakers who thinly praise, or opt out of the discussion altogether when it comes to Obama, Senator Manchin has gone on the offensive. Most recently, he blasted Obama for failed leadership on the issue of budget deficits.
This is not really a position of tremendous political courage for Manchin. West Virginia despises Obama and overwhelmingly approves of their newest U. S. Senator. However, he is right to compare his own leadership favorably to the absent Obama. Manchin, albeit with a few accounting gimmicks, could show a balanced budget every year. He also used surpluses to reduce state pension debt. Despite the (D) after his name, Manchin exercised some fiscal conservatism. His example has been followed by current West Virginia governor Earl Ray Tomblin and even New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Common sense dictates that in a poor economy, tax hikes and drastically expanded spending cannot work.
Joe Manchin is the consummate politician. He has an endgame here. Does it involve a bid for higher political office under the Democratic banner? Or is his rhetoric, which sounds moderate for a Republican and actually runs right of Mitt Romney in some ways, prefacing a party switch?
This coming election cycle could be one of the most raucous and unpredictable in some time. Some things that would have been impossible a few years ago might be seen as bold solutions now, especially if a true maverick like Newt Gingrich ends up on the GOP ticket.
For now, it is interesting to see Manchin again target Obama on the economic warpath.
Unlike many Democratic lawmakers who thinly praise, or opt out of the discussion altogether when it comes to Obama, Senator Manchin has gone on the offensive. Most recently, he blasted Obama for failed leadership on the issue of budget deficits.
This is not really a position of tremendous political courage for Manchin. West Virginia despises Obama and overwhelmingly approves of their newest U. S. Senator. However, he is right to compare his own leadership favorably to the absent Obama. Manchin, albeit with a few accounting gimmicks, could show a balanced budget every year. He also used surpluses to reduce state pension debt. Despite the (D) after his name, Manchin exercised some fiscal conservatism. His example has been followed by current West Virginia governor Earl Ray Tomblin and even New York governor Andrew Cuomo. Common sense dictates that in a poor economy, tax hikes and drastically expanded spending cannot work.
Joe Manchin is the consummate politician. He has an endgame here. Does it involve a bid for higher political office under the Democratic banner? Or is his rhetoric, which sounds moderate for a Republican and actually runs right of Mitt Romney in some ways, prefacing a party switch?
This coming election cycle could be one of the most raucous and unpredictable in some time. Some things that would have been impossible a few years ago might be seen as bold solutions now, especially if a true maverick like Newt Gingrich ends up on the GOP ticket.
For now, it is interesting to see Manchin again target Obama on the economic warpath.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Obama and NASCAR...What Could Go Wrong?
In one of the worst of a series of bad moves for the Obama administration, someone had the bright idea to put Michelle Obama front and center in front of a .........NASCAR crowd?
What's next? Beer summit between Barack and Charlie Daniels?
Michelle Obama, she who was first proud to be an American only when her husband received the nomination, was booed heartily by the crowd in Florida. Just like Herbert Hoover met with boos in 1932 when he attended baseball games.
She ostensibly was on tap for a pretty worthy cause, honoring troops and their families. The swing state timing of this appearance was certainly political, and had she met with roars of approval, Democrat pundits would have eagerly embraced this as evidence that Obama has more support than we think.
Barack himself, who believes that these NASCAR fans cling unreasonably to guns and religion, (among other fairly condescending remarks) was booed in 2010 by Boy Scouts, of all people. This is not a new phenomenon for the Obamas.
I wonder what bright individual thought that Obama and NASCAR would mix. NASCAR fans do not tend to be leftists. And don't give me the race issue either. Had Allen West or Herman Cain done the same, they would have received raucous cheers.
Michelle Obama should try opening up CPAC next year. She might get a better reaction.
What's next? Beer summit between Barack and Charlie Daniels?
Michelle Obama, she who was first proud to be an American only when her husband received the nomination, was booed heartily by the crowd in Florida. Just like Herbert Hoover met with boos in 1932 when he attended baseball games.
She ostensibly was on tap for a pretty worthy cause, honoring troops and their families. The swing state timing of this appearance was certainly political, and had she met with roars of approval, Democrat pundits would have eagerly embraced this as evidence that Obama has more support than we think.
Barack himself, who believes that these NASCAR fans cling unreasonably to guns and religion, (among other fairly condescending remarks) was booed in 2010 by Boy Scouts, of all people. This is not a new phenomenon for the Obamas.
I wonder what bright individual thought that Obama and NASCAR would mix. NASCAR fans do not tend to be leftists. And don't give me the race issue either. Had Allen West or Herman Cain done the same, they would have received raucous cheers.
Michelle Obama should try opening up CPAC next year. She might get a better reaction.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
University of Charleston: Ahead of the Curve
The University of Charleston, yes, our Charleston, is getting ahead of the curve on changes that are coming to higher education.
It announced this month that tuition will drop 22% over the next few years.
High education costs, pushed by the student loan balloon, have soared. Students and institutions of higher learning alike rode the "free money" train for many years. Humanities departments rejoiced and hired hand over fist, granting tenure to many. Inevitably, student loan procedures will change. They will have to be more geared toward students who plan to do something productive with their degrees, something that will eventually be able to repay the loans.
Colleges and universities will have to do their part and lower their tuition and fees. Raises in these were only possible on a large scale because of the student aid programs.
The University of Charleston is adapting to the landscape before the changes come, trying to remain competitive for great students while dealing with the realities of the next several years.
Bravo, U. C. You are likely a model for the rest of the country.
It announced this month that tuition will drop 22% over the next few years.
High education costs, pushed by the student loan balloon, have soared. Students and institutions of higher learning alike rode the "free money" train for many years. Humanities departments rejoiced and hired hand over fist, granting tenure to many. Inevitably, student loan procedures will change. They will have to be more geared toward students who plan to do something productive with their degrees, something that will eventually be able to repay the loans.
Colleges and universities will have to do their part and lower their tuition and fees. Raises in these were only possible on a large scale because of the student aid programs.
The University of Charleston is adapting to the landscape before the changes come, trying to remain competitive for great students while dealing with the realities of the next several years.
Bravo, U. C. You are likely a model for the rest of the country.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Has CBS Rediscovered Journalism?
The lowest point of the news career of the Tiffany Network came in 2004 when Dan Rather pursued a story about George W. Bush's National Guard record into the ground, despite the fact that supporting documentation was forged. This came many years after Rather declared a vendetta for no conceivable reason against George H. W. Bush. In 2008, Katie Couric ambushed Sarah Palin by using a softball interview to ask strong questions. Which, honestly, is fair enough. A candidate or elected official should be prepared to answer tough questions at any time. But treat Obama and Biden the same, please. That's all we ask.
That was then. Are we seeing a new CBS?
Which old network has pursued Fast and Furious? CBS. Which old network spotlighted a Brietbart contributor's book on the use by congressmen and women (including Pelosi) of inside congressional information to score big on stocks? CBS' 60 Minutes.
CBS seems to have rediscovered the public benefit of journalism that shows less ideological favor and hits everyone just as hard. Now they are not yet perfect. Scott Pelley's laughable performance as debate moderator demonstrates that they have a ways to go. But at least they are covering the news.
That was then. Are we seeing a new CBS?
Which old network has pursued Fast and Furious? CBS. Which old network spotlighted a Brietbart contributor's book on the use by congressmen and women (including Pelosi) of inside congressional information to score big on stocks? CBS' 60 Minutes.
CBS seems to have rediscovered the public benefit of journalism that shows less ideological favor and hits everyone just as hard. Now they are not yet perfect. Scott Pelley's laughable performance as debate moderator demonstrates that they have a ways to go. But at least they are covering the news.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Remember Our Vets Today
From the militia defending the frontier in the 1600s to the men and women on the front lines of freedom today. You all are appreciated. Thank you!
The Third Agency and the Stupid Shallowness of Debating
In the future, the Republican Party needs to shape the debate process better.
In no way, shape or form can voters make an intelligent decision about their candidates when their main national speaking forum resembles more a game show than a serious discourse.
In thirty seconds or less, explain how and why you would end Obamacare. Really? This is what an important issue gets reduced to?
Rick Perry is no debater, but he does have more executive branch experience than anyone that he might face in this election. How does eleven years of experience translate into debating? It doesn't. Pundits, based solely on his debating skills, rate him as mentally deficient. Debating skill does not necessarily equal political brilliance. Had Prince Otto von Bismarck, one of the great statesmen of the modern era, been put on stage with these GOP candidates, he would have flubbed worse than Perry.
Tell me when, outside of a campaign, does a president have to debate anyone in this fashion?
I am not endorsing Rick Perry here. In fact, if there is any way that we can set aside the personal baggage, Newt Gingrich may be the best potential president. He sounds absolutely Churchillian at times.
Gingrich, to his credit, is trying to change the game. America deserves thoughtful debate. We don't need guys standing behind podiums sweating nervously and trying not to make mistakes. Let us, just one time, sit these candidates down in comfortable chairs and let them calmly discuss the issues of the day. If it takes three hours, so be it. If America tunes out, that is our choice. But let us discuss issues in a civilized tone so we can make a truly educated choice.
In no way, shape or form can voters make an intelligent decision about their candidates when their main national speaking forum resembles more a game show than a serious discourse.
In thirty seconds or less, explain how and why you would end Obamacare. Really? This is what an important issue gets reduced to?
Rick Perry is no debater, but he does have more executive branch experience than anyone that he might face in this election. How does eleven years of experience translate into debating? It doesn't. Pundits, based solely on his debating skills, rate him as mentally deficient. Debating skill does not necessarily equal political brilliance. Had Prince Otto von Bismarck, one of the great statesmen of the modern era, been put on stage with these GOP candidates, he would have flubbed worse than Perry.
Tell me when, outside of a campaign, does a president have to debate anyone in this fashion?
I am not endorsing Rick Perry here. In fact, if there is any way that we can set aside the personal baggage, Newt Gingrich may be the best potential president. He sounds absolutely Churchillian at times.
Gingrich, to his credit, is trying to change the game. America deserves thoughtful debate. We don't need guys standing behind podiums sweating nervously and trying not to make mistakes. Let us, just one time, sit these candidates down in comfortable chairs and let them calmly discuss the issues of the day. If it takes three hours, so be it. If America tunes out, that is our choice. But let us discuss issues in a civilized tone so we can make a truly educated choice.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Why Republicans Should Engage Labor Unions
A dalliance. A brief liaison. A flirtation. That might be all that is needed to spur union rank and file towards the Republican camp in the upcoming election year.
Big Labor has a problem. They face squeezes from the Left and the Right. Conservatives want to check their power in the private and public workplace. They see Big Labor's goals as a burden upon the economy and what is left of the manufacturing sector.
The Left presents even more challenges. Its "Occupy" movement embraced Big Labor, then protested the economic development that labor needs to survive. The proposed pipeline from Canada to the Gulf would employ steelworkers, Teamsters, and who knows how many others who pay their union dues. Big Labor understands that these worker intensive projects form their lifeblood in a fashion that windmills and solar panels do not. Richard Trumka a few weeks ago angered the Right by threatening violence against the Tea Party. Now he angers the Left with his grumbling recalcitrance against their hypergreenie movement.
As I said last week, the American economy is capable of paying off our debt and social programs that have been vetted to prevent inefficiency and fraud. We can also handle some of the desires of Big Labor. It is interesting that we were able to pay for all of this until the 1970s when more and more regulations served to hogtie manufacturing and energy production. Now we need not go back to the bad old days of rampant pollution, but we also need a reasonable balance between the needs of conservationists and industry.
Were I a GOP presidential candidate, and Newt Gingrich is likely the only candidate with the brass cahones to do so, I would invite the AFL-CIO in for a discussion, much as he did with Herman Cain. They can discuss where conservatives and Big Labor can realize shared goals of expanding production and prosperity while clearing the air over shared anxieties about each other. Would they come away in perfect agreement? Probably not. But traditional Big Labor liberals have more shared interests with conservatives than they do with the Left.
Big Labor has a problem. They face squeezes from the Left and the Right. Conservatives want to check their power in the private and public workplace. They see Big Labor's goals as a burden upon the economy and what is left of the manufacturing sector.
The Left presents even more challenges. Its "Occupy" movement embraced Big Labor, then protested the economic development that labor needs to survive. The proposed pipeline from Canada to the Gulf would employ steelworkers, Teamsters, and who knows how many others who pay their union dues. Big Labor understands that these worker intensive projects form their lifeblood in a fashion that windmills and solar panels do not. Richard Trumka a few weeks ago angered the Right by threatening violence against the Tea Party. Now he angers the Left with his grumbling recalcitrance against their hypergreenie movement.
As I said last week, the American economy is capable of paying off our debt and social programs that have been vetted to prevent inefficiency and fraud. We can also handle some of the desires of Big Labor. It is interesting that we were able to pay for all of this until the 1970s when more and more regulations served to hogtie manufacturing and energy production. Now we need not go back to the bad old days of rampant pollution, but we also need a reasonable balance between the needs of conservationists and industry.
Were I a GOP presidential candidate, and Newt Gingrich is likely the only candidate with the brass cahones to do so, I would invite the AFL-CIO in for a discussion, much as he did with Herman Cain. They can discuss where conservatives and Big Labor can realize shared goals of expanding production and prosperity while clearing the air over shared anxieties about each other. Would they come away in perfect agreement? Probably not. But traditional Big Labor liberals have more shared interests with conservatives than they do with the Left.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
A Tale of Two Joes
Two Joes have the spotlight today. One finally got his due, another got exposed. One was beloved by the media, the other ridiculed. Time has a way of uncovering the good and evil that men do, or at least tolerate.
Joe Frazier never got his due while he was alive, as a boxer or a man. The media always saw him as a placeholder for Muhammed Ali during his suspension, even after Frazier beat him. It took Frazier's death for the media to admit, finally, that Ali (as a Washington D. C. sports talk commentator said this morning) that Ali was a "d!&k" and that Frazier conducted himself with class.
The media always looked upon Joe Frazier with scorn and laughed at Ali's racial characterizations of him. They sounded a lot like later attacks on Condoleeza Rice and Michael Steele. Frazier bore them with pride and dignity, even in his later, impoverished years. Only now, with his death, do we finally hear that, yes, this was a great man in his own way.
Joe Paterno has always been identified as morality and rectitude itself. He comes from that greatest generation and seemed to symbolize all of its virtues. Unfortunately, he could not bring himself, when given a statement that a child had suffered sexual attack, to turn in his old friend who happened to attack at least eight other children. Paterno did the legal minimum. He told his superiors. It does not matter that Paterno knew few of the pertinent details. He knew a man with Penn State credentials had sexually forced himself on a young boy. That is all you need to know to pick up the damned phone and call 9-1-1.
So while we feel disappointment with one Joe, let us remember fondly the other. Joe Paterno was not the man we thought he was. But Joe Frazier was so much more.
Joe Frazier never got his due while he was alive, as a boxer or a man. The media always saw him as a placeholder for Muhammed Ali during his suspension, even after Frazier beat him. It took Frazier's death for the media to admit, finally, that Ali (as a Washington D. C. sports talk commentator said this morning) that Ali was a "d!&k" and that Frazier conducted himself with class.
The media always looked upon Joe Frazier with scorn and laughed at Ali's racial characterizations of him. They sounded a lot like later attacks on Condoleeza Rice and Michael Steele. Frazier bore them with pride and dignity, even in his later, impoverished years. Only now, with his death, do we finally hear that, yes, this was a great man in his own way.
Joe Paterno has always been identified as morality and rectitude itself. He comes from that greatest generation and seemed to symbolize all of its virtues. Unfortunately, he could not bring himself, when given a statement that a child had suffered sexual attack, to turn in his old friend who happened to attack at least eight other children. Paterno did the legal minimum. He told his superiors. It does not matter that Paterno knew few of the pertinent details. He knew a man with Penn State credentials had sexually forced himself on a young boy. That is all you need to know to pick up the damned phone and call 9-1-1.
So while we feel disappointment with one Joe, let us remember fondly the other. Joe Paterno was not the man we thought he was. But Joe Frazier was so much more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)