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]

Mortgage Meltdown

An advertisement for 100% mortgages seen outsi...
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]

Update from A Mortgage Fable

– 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.