Rejecting the Arrogance
In this morning’s Washington Post, Obama wrote that the Stimulus Package (which is horrendously misleading as there is far more liberal pet socialist programs than stimulus in the package) must be passed immediately or puppies will die. No time to read it, just sign it.
But then he includes this phrase -
“I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change,” he wrote.
I heard him say something similar last week when he refused to implement any conservative suggestions into the negotiations, adding it was because “he won.”
I heard it last night as a significant step toward Marxism was implemented when Obama signed the SCIHP program. Congress is lying about it’s implementation. They raised taxes for the first time in this adminstration by adding 62 cents to a pack of cigarettes, they claim this will fund the socialized medicine program, when in reality they need an additional 24 million smokers to fund it. And then Obama added that the people voted for it because they voted for him.
This is arrogance, and I’m already tired of it. Yes, Obama is my President, but I didn’t vote for that. Nor did the vast majority of Americans request a move to Marxism. Obama promised change, and Americans were tired of Congress lying. Every year they promise to hold back spending and then they spend it like drunken sailors. Obama is doing the exact same thing and there is absolutely no change. Same old same old.
I reject the arrogance. If you want to be bipartisan, Mr. President, show that you have an inkling of understanding for the conservative view point instead of shoving an “I won” down our throats.
May the so-called “Stimulus Package” go down in flames. Defeat is necessary in order to save our country.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_b.png?x-id=a480d112-6a33-49ba-a668-99171333a457)
Mortgage Meltdown
- Image via Wikipedia
I had been thinking this, but hadn’t seen anybody writing about it.
Sub-prime mortgages have led to a financial crisis. The blame for sub-prime mortgages generally get laid on the greed of the mortgage bankers, but is that all there is to it?
Twenty years ago I remember the push to get banks and lending into low-income minority neighborhoods. There was a push at the time to make mortgages easier for those who could least afford them because it was good for the neighborhood.
Stan Liebowitz’s book, Housing America: Building out of a Crisis, puts the blame back on the federal government. I agree – without the government pushing banks to lend to risky people, there would have been less risk. Simple, no?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=594f47c4-e229-4de3-9b6f-14bfdc7195bc)
Update from A Mortgage Fable -
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )- The Community Reinvestment Act. This 1977 law compels banks to make loans to poor borrowers who often cannot repay them. Banks that failed to make enough of these loans were often held hostage by activists when they next sought some regulatory approval.
Robert Litan, an economist at the Brookings Institution, told the Washington Post this year that banks “had to show they were making a conscious effort to make loans to subprime borrowers.” The much-maligned Phil Gramm fought to limit these CRA requirements in the 1990s, albeit to little effect and much political jeering.
Democrats Still Stunned
The Democrats have that “deer in the headlights” look. The Whitehouse has started publishing “corrections” to the Washington Post and New York Times when they say Bush led us like a lone cowboy into war. Then that awesome video of Clinton, Albright and others in their own words from 1998 saying that Saddam was a threat, had WMDs, and had to be removed. Hard to claim it was all Bush’s idea when the Democrats were saying the same thing two years earlier. They just didn’t have the oomph to follow up their words. Bush did.
Cheney gave them another punch yesterday:
The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone – but we’re not going to sit by and let them rewrite history.
We’re going to continue throwing their own words back at them. And far more important, we’re going to continue sending a consistent message to the men and women who are fighting the war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other fronts.
About dang time. The Democrats voted for the war. That’s the hypocracy I can’t stand – if they were so opposed, why did they vote for it? Second-guessing after the fact isn’t any better than whining. Lots of conservatives fired up over Cheney’s speech and you can read the whole thing at Baldilocks, Brutally Honest, PoliPundit, Power Line, and Right Voices.
So what’s the Dems new strategy? Why, think about filibustering Alito again. Goodness knows the American people love it when the Democrats shut down the Senate.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Setting the Record Straight
Finally, the White House is addressing the liberal media for making outrageous claims about how Bush lied, led us into war, yada yada yada. Conservatives have long read the Washington Post and the New York Times and pointed out the errors, errors embraced by the liberal media to make their point.
Two days ago, the Washington Post got switchin’ from the White House. After an editorial implied that Bush led the nation to war by manipulating inteligence data, the next day the White House set the record straight.
This morning the New York Times says that foreign intelligence services disagreed with U.S. intelligence. Off to the woodshed, the White House sets the record straight.
I love it. If the liberal media is going to push their left-wing agenda, they’re going to have to learn to do it using, you know, facts and stuff.
Update: Check out this video.
Update 2: If that above link doesn’t work, it’s mirrored here.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Tom Delay's Ethics
The New York Times and Washington Post have been relentless on attacking Tom DeLay lately on a variety of ethics charges. Now, I’m all in favor of removing unethical politicians when their heads get too big, but is that what’s happening here? The National Review gives a rundown on the charges and asks if they’re fair or partisan. Here’s a quick summary:
- The NY Times noted that Tom DeLay’s wife and daughter were on the payroll for his relection campaign. Not only does this comply with House rules, but many other politicians do this as well, including Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. The NY Times only mentions Delay.
- Washington Post says Tom DeLay traveled to Moscow in 1997, paid for by private Russian companies. DeLay says the National Center for Public Policy Research paid for it, and the National Center backs him up and says the reports are false
- A similar trip to South Korea was paid for by the US-Korea National Exchange Council (KORUSEC). If it’s a domestic organization, apparently it’s legal, but not if it’s a foreign agent. KORUSEC was registered as domestic when DeLay accepted the trip, then days before the trip, KORUSEC changed it’s status to foreign but neglected to tell DeLay. The NY Times doesn’t mention the Democrats on this trip, including a staff member of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.
- Three former Delay associates have been indicted for taking corporate contributions to fund candidates in the Texas State house, but DeLay hasn’t been indicted. The prosecuter previously indicted Kay Bailey Hutchinson when she won her Senate seat, but courts threw all the charges out in a single day. If DeLay is simply indicted, even if he’s not guilty, House rules forces DeLay to step down. So far, he hasn’t even been indicted or accused of wrongdoing.
Until I see something more concrete, this looks like partisan thuggery to tarnish Tom DeLay.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )De-legitimizing the Election
A good article on the Washington Post shows how the media is attempting to de-legitimize the 2004, comparing it to the last conservative victory the media de-legitimized 10 years ago, the 1994 New Gingrich Contract with America.
In 1994, when the Gingrich revolution swept Republicans into power, ending 40 years of Democratic hegemony in the House, the mainstream press needed to account for this inversion of the Perfect Order of Things. A myth was born. Explained the USA Today headline: “ANGRY WHITE MEN: Their votes turn the tide for GOP.”
Overnight, the revolution of the Angry White Male became conventional wisdom. In the 10 years before the 1994 election there were 56 mentions of angry white men in the media, according to LexisNexis. In the next seven months there were more than 1,400.
At the time, I looked into this story line — and found not a scintilla of evidence to support the claim. Nonetheless, it was a necessary invention, a way for the liberal elite to delegitimize a conservative victory. And, even better, a way to assuage their moral vanity: You never lose because your ideas are sclerotic or your positions retrograde, but because your opponent appealed to the baser instincts of mankind.
Plus ca change … Ten years and another stunning Democratic defeat later, and liberals are at it again. The Angry White Male has been transmuted into the Bigoted Christian Redneck.
Thanks to Lone Star Times for shining the flashlight on this story.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Strong and Compelling Answers
Kerry has been saying lately, “I have been consistent all along on Iraq. I would have done things differently.”
I’ll tell you this – I follow politics daily, and I have no idea what Kerry’s plan is. He says he’s going to be tough on terror, he wouldn’t go into Iraq, Saddam had to be removed, we did it the wrong way, we must pass a global test first… blah blah blah. After all this time, I can’t figure out his position. “I am against the war I voted for, I would have done things differently but we would have had the same result only better” is the best I can come up with.
I understand George Bush’s plan. Kerry’s attempted to make Bush look like Bush is the one flip-flopping, but that’s a goofy strategy. Everybody knows what Bush’s strategy is: mow terrorists down with tanks. Bush is steadfast and unmoving on this point, and it’s precisely because Bush doesn’t flip flop that the anti-war left hates him.
Bob Woodward of the Washington Post decided to put these concerns to rest. He planned to interview George Bush first, then Kerry second and let Kerry rebut point-by-point what Bush did.
Here’s how that plan went:
At the end of last year, during 3 1/2 hours of interviews over two days, I asked President Bush hundreds of detailed questions about his actions and decisions during the 16-month run-up to the war in Iraq. His answers were published in my book “Plan of Attack.” Beginning on June 16, I had discussions and meetings with Sen. John Kerry’s senior foreign policy, communications and political advisers about interviewing the senator to find out how he might have acted on Iraq — to ask him what he would have done at certain key points. Senior Kerry advisers initially seemed positive about such an interview. One aide told me, “The short answer is yes, it’s going to happen.”
In August, I was talking with Kerry’s scheduler about possible dates. On Sept. 1, Kerry began his intense criticism of Bush’s decisions in the Iraq war, saying “I would’ve done almost everything differently.” A few days later, I provided the Kerry campaign with a list of 22 possible questions based entirely on Bush’s actions leading up to the war and how Kerry might have responded in the same situations. The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.
Huh. “The senator and his campaign have since decided not to do the interview, though his advisers say Kerry would have strong and compelling answers.”
I still don’t know what Kerry’s plan is, but I can be assured Kerry has strong and compelling answers. Whatever they are.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Intelligence Reform
Via the Washington Post
The Senate voted overwhelmingly yesterday to revamp the structure of the nation’s intelligence community by creating a national intelligence director, a counterterrorism center and other agencies in response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The legislation passed 96 to 2. Hmm… that only adds up to 98 Senators. I wonder who didn’t vote on this important counterterrorism legislation? Could it be Senator Gone and Senator Goner?
Yup. That’s right. The Democratic Saviors and Presidential Wannabees Kerry and Edwards can’t be bothered to show up to vote.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )Bush Apologize? I Think Not.
There are a couple of liberal websites I read; I find most of them full of vitriol and I avoid them, but some of them have polite, civil discussion. One of them is Something’s Got to Break. He’s posted an article that calls for Bush to apologize for the Iraq war.
I was intrigued by this position; I don’t think Bush has anything to apologize for. I believe, as I’m sure Bush believes, that Iraq was a danger to the US, itself, and Iraq’s neighbors, that Saddam had developed a “just-in-time” capability of WMDs, that sufficient sarin, mustard gas, and enriched uranium has been found, that stopping the torture and mass graves was a very humanitarian thing to do. That the Oil-for-Food program was making Saddam, UN and France officials rich and that’s why they still opposed force after 12 years.
In short, America did what America does best; they liberated a country and are now rebuilding it. No other country that I know of would have attempted such a thing without also attempting to lay claim to Iraq’s soveriegnty.
Something’s Got to Break has also linked to a Dallas News “conservative political columnist and Bush supporter” to call for the apology. After reading the article, he doesn’t sound very conservative to me, but basically he hinges the whole call for apology on a Washington Post poll that says only 45% of the public think the war was worth fighting versus 57% a year ago. I think that could be attributed to a number of things; partially hindsight on the poor quality of our intelligence, but also the unrelentless negativity from the media. If you read most of the liberal news, you’d think there was no evidence of WMD’s, that Americans were happily killing babies in the US quest for more oil. The news doesn’t portray any of the positives; the statues Iraqis have built in praise of American soldiers, the new schools America is building, the Baghdad stock market opening last week (and half of the floor traders are Iraqi women). News like that barely gets mentioned, if at all.
Anyway, if you’d like a more liberal view of the world than can be found here, but a polite, civil, liberal view, I think Something’s Got to Break might fit your needs. I disagree with almost everything he says, but he’s mostly polite about it. 
Valid Criticisms and Polite Discourse
In any disagreement, there’s a way to have a polite discourse. Once you’ve resorted to name-calling, the effectiveness of the argument is lost. For instance, I feel calling Michael Moore a liar is valid as long as I have evidence he is purposefully misleading people. I see some bloggers calling him “fat”. While that’s true, it has nothing to do with the argument. Peter Jackson is also fat, yet many people loved the “Lord of the Rings” movies. The weight of the director in either case shouldn’t come into play.
When the NAACP said the Republicans “idea of equal rights is the American flag and the Confederate swastika flying side by side,” it’s crossed over the border of ideas and into the realm of insults. “Confederate swastika” invokes images of slavery, concentration camps, slaughter of people based on religion, etc. Is there any truth that Republicans want slavery to return when Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, and Rod Page are in Bush’s cabinet? Are we rounding up people of certain ethnicities and gassing them to death? Of course not – so this is “partisan rhetoric” designed to inflame emotions. It should be denounced by both sides – partisan rhetoric leads to hate.
There’s nothing wrong with being partisan though. You can support Kerry if you wish, it’s perfectly American to support the candidate of your choosing. I’m supporting Bush, I think by far he’s the better person for the job.
I’ve criticized Kerry frequently; I don’t think he’ll be good for America. I think he engineered his 3 Purple Hearts for political gain, I think he straddles the issue of abortion for political gain. I think he’s trying to be both pro-war and anti-war at the same time. I think he flip-flops on a wide majority of issues for political gain – yesterday, the Washington Post quoted Kerry as pandering to the Jewish community when he’s spent years criticizing Bush’s policies and calling Arafat a “statesman”. But each of those criticisms comes with backup and sources to justify my opinion.
Can Bush be criticized in a civil manner? Of course he can. I don’t fault him for the deficit; I believe the recession was caused by a stock market bubble bursting (I don’t even fault Clinton for that), and that burst caused the drop in revenue and 9/11 made it worse, and the additional military spending was required to fight the battle. I *do* criticize him for additional social spending. I’m not sure Bush has actually run on a platform of fiscal conservatism; he’s generally been labeled a “neo-con” that favors spending on conservative issues, but I can still be critical of the Medicare spending and farm subsidies and steel tarriffs, etc. Kerry’s not a solution to those issues since he wants to spend a *lot* more. I saw New Gingrich (ok, so he’s not exactly bi-partisan) on Fox this week who counted Kerry’s promised social programs and said they added up to $2 trillion. Ouch.
The Iraq war is winding down; I don’t believe in criticizing a sitting President’s war-time decisions, but the Iraqis are sovereign again and questions can be asked. Did Bush lie, as some liberals have said? I don’t think so – Bush said Saddam had WMDs; not only have we found sarin, mustard gas, long range missiles, and enriched uranium, but the bipartisan 9/11 Commission unanimously said that Bush relied on CIA intelligence and didn’t force them to reach a specific conclusion. In fact most liberals themselves believed Saddam had WMDs before the war. Everybody did. To call him a liar, then, is again unfair partisan rhetoric. I’ve heard a liberal friend call it “Bush’s daddy’s little war” as though this was some sort of revenge. I think that’s delusional if you think that was the overriding reason the US went to war. Some liberals have tried to claim that Bush lied about Saddam’s ties to 9/11, but that is also untrue – Bush never claimed that; Bush only claimed that Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda, and that part is true.
Can you criticize Bush over his handling of the war? I think so; a valid criticism might center around his ability to sway European people to the US point of view. I wouldn’t subscribe to that point of view; I think it’s obvious now that the corrupt U.N. Oil-for-Food program and other oil service significantly affected France, Germany and Russia, and any attempt to shut down this corruption was going to cost them billions of dollars. I think Bush did a good job at trying to make his point at the U.N. based on the intelligence at the time, but France was *never* going to support us. It would cost them too much money.
If you’re pro-abortion, I think a valid concern would be Bush’s pro-life agenda. I’m pro-life and think that Bush’s agenda is more than acceptable, it’s about dang time. But if you’re pro-abortion, that would be an acceptable criticism. I don’t think Kerry’s much of a solution here, either – he says he believes in pro-abortion, he believes life begins at conception, and he believes he shouldn’t vote his beliefs. He’s voted Pro-abortion as a Senator from Massachusets, but with a Republican congress he’s likely to sign pro-Life bills anyway.
Is Bush a moron? The loonier liberals like to claim that, too, but that’s untrue. Bush’s wealth and family connections might have gotten him into fancy colleges, but all the connections in the world won’t get you a degree. He has a undergrad degree from Yale, a Masters in Business Administration from Harvard, and he can fly an F-102. He might not be the best speaker in the world, but he’s hardly a moron. Criticize his speaking abilities – but I don’t think Kerry’s got him beat there. Bush has malapropisms, Kerry’s boring as wood.
But any valid liberal criticism of Bush is lost in the vast wasteland of the liberal hysteria – Bush lied, he’s a Nazi, he’s racist, he’s blah blah blah. Liberals have the ability to make valid criticisms and Bush certainly has traits that could be criticized, but any valid criticism has been completely drowned out by partisan liberal hysteria. I look forward to the days that the ultra-left wing hysteria is replaced with a more rational but patriotic liberal. Rational disagreements are good for our country; calling the President a Nazi is not.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )
