Thinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo BlogitoThinking in Print - Cogito Ergo Blogito
I don’t agree with everything this young man says. But his passion and his general observations make some eloquent statements. Men and women such as this are the future of the Right. Why do I say so? Just one quote …
“It’s one thing to reach across the aisle to the other side. It’s quite another to have so much gravity that the other side of the aisle comes to us!”
While I’m unwilling to concede just yet that Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States, it would be foolish to deny that possibility. Even if John McCain wins, the status of Conservatism in the GOP and politics generally is troubling at best.
Politicians and The People, with few exceptions, seem determined to abandon sound, proven truths for the warm, fuzzy rhetoric of the Economic and Social policies of “Hope!” and “Change!” It’s difficult to blame The People. They gave the GOP a shot at letting Conservative ideology work it’s magic on the country for years. Turns out the Pols weren’t as Conservative as advertised.
The years after the Reagan era are defined by a GOP wanting more to breed and less to lead. GOP strategy was “What must we do to increase our power and get re-elected?” instead of “What must we do to serve the people and earn our re-election?”
The nominations of Bob Dole, W and now John McCain coupled with the strategy of many GOP House and Senate candidates has reinforced that approach. A notable exception, AZ Representative John Shadegg, says even at the height of 1994’s Republican Revolution the GOP’s advice was his most important job wasn’t to represent his district or promote his constituents’ values; it was to get re-elected.
This approach has tainted Conservatism in the minds of the people. It has become identical to, or at least wed to the GOP. Thus the sins of the Party become the sins of the Principled. Even if Conservatives object, pointing out they never countenanced bad behavior by the GOP (The Bailout, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Reform) The People still see them as part of the problem and not the solution. How else to understand what happened to Rick Santorum, George Allen and others?
Such losses make the Democrats’ job easier. Each defeated Conservative frees up time, energy and moneyto defeat those remaining. Squishy GOP members voted with Democrats enough to permit them to establish portions of their agenda and to regain solid Congressional majorities. Two things will follow: those who believe the Left can be reasoned with and appeased will be rudely awakened and the country will suffer. To date, only the second is happening.
GOP snubbing of Conservatives has produced much soul searching. The choices are stay in the GOP and work internally for change or leave to found or join a third party. I’m not advocating either choice. But enabling the status quo is not an option. We each must decide what the best use is of our time and talents. To decide, regardless of who wins the White House, a few things should be influential.
It is impossible to predict the consequences of next week’s election. It is, however, quite possible to predict what will happen if Conservatives do nothing. Surrender and chains being unacceptable options, regrouping and fighting on will have to do for now …
Sitting in airports most of yesterday, I got an earful of CNN’s coverage of Colin Powell’s endorsement of Barack Obama.
It effectively undercut two of the most damning truths about Obama. Particularly galling was the interview with Claire McCaskill. Grinning like the Cheshire cat, she gushed Obama must be the best choice since Powell, a military man, would never support someone unqualified to serve as CinC or who trafficked with terrorists. This despite the fact Powell’s endorsement included nothing addressing the validity of those two points. Even afterward, General Powell did not address with specificity his rationale for endorsing Obama.
By far, however, the most disappointing aspect of Powell’s endorsement was his contention that, despite his decision, he still considers himself a Republican. I do not know the General nor have I ever spoken to him. I believe he is a good man and his skilled service to our country as a military man is beyond exemplary. But I cannot accept his contention that he is a Republican. It is not because he endorsed the nominee from the other side. It is his stated reasons for doing so.
Over the last 8 years, three prominent Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee; Zell Miller, Democratic Senator from Georgia; Ed Koch, former Democratic Mayor of NYC and Joe Lieberman, former Democratic Senator from CT and 2000 Democratic VP nominee. When these Democrats endorsed the GOP nominee, they did so deliberately and with specificity. They did so while remaining Democrats. With the exception of Zell Miller, they did so while disagreeing with Republicans on almost every other point except the War on Terror. Concluding aggression against the US was the greatest threat to the nation and that Democrats could not or would not see that, these men broke with their party to support a GOP nominee. Miller’s endorsement followed in the well established DixieCrat tradition of Conservative southern Democrats. There was nothing that demanded these men be excluded from the Democratic Party.
There was a fair amount of criticism from the Left directed at these men for their decision. Like Powell, however, they maintained they were still Democrats while breaking with the party on the war. That break cost them. While Miller retired shortly after his endorsement, he was villified by Leftists. Lieberman was actively opposed by the Democratic Party in his bid for reelection to the Senate. These men remain Democrats in all things except for their endorsements. Ed Koch is supporting Obama and thinks Palin is scary. Joe Lieberman still caucuses with Democrats and votes with them on virtually all matters not related to the war. It is clear, whether or not you agree with their assessment of the war, that was the reason they supported the nominee from the GOP.
Colin Powell’s rationale isn’t even close to as specific. It’s filled with nebulous and meaningless platitudes. Obama brings a fresh set of eyes to the problem. Well, so does Sarah Palin. Obama is inclusive. This is simply laughable as there is literally zero evidence for that. If inclusiveness is the criteria by which we are to judge, McCain is the hands down winner. Powell is uncomfortable with the rhetoric coming out of the McCain camp regarding Obama’s association with terrorists, both foreign and domestic. Evidently he is OK with the rhetoric coming from the camps of terrorists, both foreign and domestic, that support the Illinois Senator.
In short, Powell’s objections to McCain aren’t policy based. They aren’t ideologically based. They seem to be based in personality. That is not to say personality has nothing to do with how to evaluate a candidate. But it ought to be last on the list and certainly not a basis for abandoning party policy and ideology. Unless, of course, your policy and ideology is more akin to the other guy’s than to the one you are generally associated with.
Colin Powell, when asked if he was still a Republican, responded that he was. With all respect to the General, I must disagree. There is little evidence from his speech that he is. His endorsement of Obama ignores that Obama is for bigger Government, higher Taxes, decreased personal Liberty, weaker national Defense and a host of other anti-GOP notions. Powell does not list a single issue or policy with which Obama is at odds with the GOP and which he considers paramount beyond all considerations for the safety and security of our nation. Instead, he gives a general and sweeping endorsement of the man and his policies which are unquestionably Left of center.
If you can explain to me how this is a Republican view, I’m willing to listen. But from here it sounds like a Democrat in GOP clothing standing up for what he believes in. I have no issue with the good General if he wants to hold Democratic views. I would appreciate, however, the intellectual honesty to admit the same and make the announcement that he cannot, in good conscience, remain in the GOP any longer and that he was endorsing the Democratic agenda.
Chief Executive magazine’s most recent polling of 751 CEOs shows that GOP presidential candidate John McCain is the preferred choice for CEOs. According to the poll, which is featured on the cover of Chief Executive’s most recent issue, by a four-to-one margin, CEOs support Senator John McCain over Senator Barack Obama. Moreover, 74 percent of the executives say they fear that an Obama presidency would be disastrous for the country.
3 out of 4 business leaders believe Obama would be a disaster. Some went so far as to predict he would bankrupt the country in just 3 years. From my perspective, these are stunning results and it is not possible to overemphasize them.
Have you not been watching the news, or reading any newspapers? With what the wealthy CEO’s have done to the American economy. I know that anything they want, I’m against. First they steal my money, then they want me to pay them again with my tax money? Oh, and go on a $400,000 vacation after they get it. I’m thinking I’ll vote for the other guy. I don’t care if he is black. The rich are rich enough. It’s time I got something other than a trickle.
The comments at this brief piece say it all. The prevailing wisdom seems to be if CEOs are for it, then it’s good for the little guy to be against it. After all, CEOs are all just money grubbing bastards who don’t care about anyone but themselves.
I must admit, even I was a bit surprised at the vehemence of the disparaging and the bitterness and cynicism expressed by these folks. Because it makes no sense. Should the people be concerned about the fact that many CEOs, including Big Government type Democrats like the execs at Freddie and Fannie, make millions while they don’t? Sure. Especially if the CEO isn’t the company’s founder and never risked a penny of his own money in the enterprise. But in the end, it’s sort of childish whining to pursue the “Corporate Execs are for it so I’ll be against it” test for determining one’s opinion apart from the occasional foray into humor.
Rationally, CEOs make such sums because they have the ability to wring sufficient profit out of the sweat and exploitation of their abused employees and successfully dupe enough consumers into buying their shoddy product. Except that would be disastrous for their personal fortune building, wouldn’t it?
Or, to continue to make big money over a long time, CEOs must do something different. Perhaps they hire and retain good people with good benefit packages and wages. Perhaps they manufacture good products or provide good services at affordable prices so consumers buy and keep buying. Perhaps some don’t behave like this. Perhaps these are those we see on TV with their businesses failing and under indictment. Perhaps the vastly larger pool of CEOs not in that situation are also not engaged in that behavior. Except that would be disastrous for the opinions of the whining class.
Objective reflection indicates the second scenario is more likely. Which means whiners need to pay attention. Those providing a steady paycheck for them for years are, indeed, concerned about them; specifically with their ability to continue doing so should Obama be elected. In their vengeful glee over evil CEOs will “getting what’s coming to them”, they forget if the company goes broke, more than the CEO will be out of a job and an income.
The point is CEOs are good at other things which we ignore at our peril. One of those is analyzing Market trends to stay ahead of or away from bad ones. Hate them all you like for being successful. But don’t be blind to the wisdom they also possess. Can they be wrong? Absolutely! But if they are saying these kinds of things, smart people will listen …
Following up on my post featuring an excellent video background for America’s current financial woes, I thought to dig deeper into The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 (CRA). A lot of scrutiny is going to be directed toward it, and rightly so. Well intentioned at the outset, CRA was hijacked by the political Left and driven to this place and time by the unscrupulous with no regard for the consequences.
Signed by Jimmy Carter, CRA purposed to increase credit availablity in Lower and Middle Income areas (LMI). Such areas were often largely inhabited by the poor or minorities. Thus, if banks were lending less in LMI areas, it could mean they were discriminating. There was even a term coined, “redlining”, for the alleged bank practice of outlining areas on maps in which they would not do business, with a red pen. When the Housing and Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) of 1976 did show low levels of lending in LMI areas, discrimination was assumed and CRA passed the following year.
Realistic alternative meanings for HMDA data were proposed and evaluated, but it was too late. Howard Husock reports
A September 1999 study by Freddie Mac, for instance, confirmed what previous Federal Reserve and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation studies had found: that African-Americans have disproportionate levels of credit problems, which explains why they have a harder time qualifying for mortgage money. As Freddie Mac found, blacks with incomes of $65,000 to $75,000 a year have on average worse credit records than whites making under $25,000.
That assessment was over 20 years too late to stop CRA. By then it had already infected the banking industry and a catalyst had been found to accelerate the process.
In 1977 banking was heavily regulated. CRA required banks to report compliance. This information was used by regulators to approve mergers, to OK opening new branches and closing old ones. Doing business required good CRA compliance. During the 70s and 80s “Regulators asked banks to demonstrate that they were trying to reach their entire “assessment area” by advertising in minority-oriented newspapers or by sending their executives to serve on the boards of local community groups.” These softer compliance reporting requirements drastically changed in 1995 under Bill Clinton’s administration. CRA was amended, adding 2 features which began and drove the Housing Bubble.
First, compliance would now be measured only by one criteria: actual loans made. Husock writes
The new regulations de-emphasized subjective assessment measures in favor of strictly numerical ones. Bank examiners would use federal home-loan data, broken down by neighborhood, income group, and race, to rate banks on performance. There would be no more A’s for effort. Only results—specific loans, specific levels of service—would count.
It was no longer acceptable to prove you were looking for the smaller number of good loan candidates in a larger pool of bad candidates. CRA compliance would only be granted if you actually found someone to loan to. True to Leftist ideology, banks were no longer good community citizens if they provided equal access to loans. They were only good if they provided equal outcomes to borrowers. Responsible lending be damned!
As bad as the first change was, the second would prove even worse, especially seen from 2008’s perspective. Once again, Howard Husock says it best.
Crucially, the new CRA regulations also instructed bank examiners to take into account how well banks responded to complaints. The old CRA evaluation process had allowed advocacy groups a chance to express their views on individual banks, and publicly available data on the lending patterns of individual banks allowed activist groups to target institutions considered vulnerable to protest. But for advocacy groups that were in the complaint business, the Clinton administration regulations offered a formal invitation. The National Community Reinvestment Coalition—a foundation-funded umbrella group for community activist groups that profit from the CRA—issued a clarion call to its members in a leaflet entitled “The New CRA Regulations: How Community Groups Can Get Involved.” “Timely comments,” the NCRC observed with a certain understatement, “can have a strong influence on a bank’s CRA rating.”
This led to all manner of abuse. Deregulation massively changed the environment which existed in 1977 when CRA was first passed. Those changes were not taken into account by the 1995 changes to CRA, they were merely exploited by activists with agendas having nothing to do with lending. Deregulation meant more bank mergers, which in turn were dependent upon good CRA scores. But scores could be depressed, meaning expensive delays in business development, simply by formal complaints directed against a bank. It mattered not if the complaints were legitimate. The process was the costly component, not the outcome. Leftist groups like ACORN and others used this to their financial advantage. In vintage Jesse Jackson style shakedowns, they received real windfall profits as banks paid them not to follow up on threats of costly, frivolous complaints.
Even more disturbing, lending decisions were removed from bankers and handed over to activists as the activists were given a powerful seat at the table. ACORN in part, not banks alone, now controlled who got CRA mandated loans. Banks got the risk, while ACORN and others just got rich! In light of this, it is realistic to say it was not just Government Democrats who brought America’s current financial woes down on us, Democratic activists also played key roles!
It makes more sense that activists with no incentive to pay attention to risk would make bad loans than would bankers who understand the lending process. Why should ACORN care if the loans they hand out, but for which banks are responsible, are defaulted on? As we have learned in the last few months, ACORN should have cared. The numbers are staggering and the impact cannot be overestimated! Husock reports in 2000,
By intervening—even just threatening to intervene—in the CRA review process, left-wing nonprofit groups have been able to gain control over eye-popping pools of bank capital, which they in turn parcel out to individual low-income mortgage seekers. A radical group called ACORN Housing has a $760 million commitment from the Bank of New York; the Boston-based Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America has a $3-billion agreement with the Bank of America; a coalition of groups headed by New Jersey Citizen Action has a five-year, $13-billion agreement with First Union Corporation. Similar deals operate in almost every major U.S. city. Observes Tom Callahan, executive director of the Massachusetts Affordable Housing Alliance, which has $220 million in bank mortgage money to parcel out, “CRA is the backbone of everything we do.”
Even worse, ACORN gets to double- and even triple-dip. Again from Husock, “In addition to providing the nonprofits with mortgage money to disburse, CRA allows those organizations to collect a fee from the banks for their services in marketing the loans. The Senate Banking Committee has estimated that, as a result of CRA, $9.5 billion so far has gone to pay for services and salaries of the nonprofit groups involved.” Activist organizations such as ACORN get shakedown payments, community influence and stature from being a reliable source for loan money and get what amount to “broker’s commissions” for doing so.
This is made even more relevant when one considers that the demon in the Housing market crisis is “greedy lenders” who engaged in “predatory lending practices” giving “huge loans to borrowers who couldn’t afford them”. I, personally, have wondered about the the numerous claims from borrowers that lenders didn’t fully explain their loan terms. I’ve often wondered why banks would engage in such suicidal practices. But if “lenders”, with literally NO liability or expertise yet armed with an agenda, controlled vast sums of loan funds, it becomes easier to understand. While many types of mortgages are currently in default, including loans to speculators who borrowed just to “flip” houses and not to live in them, it would be interesting to know how many bad loans came from banks and how many from ACORN’s “mortgage lenders”. “Greedy lenders making bad loans”, indeed!
I’m reminded of the old saying about putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. Obama’s association with ACORN and specifically with lawsuits involving CRA compliance in Chicago taint him sufficiently in my mind to disqualify him as a candidate to lead this nation. If his idea of proper tactics and procedures is embodied in this sort of activity, if this is organization he sees as beneficial for a community, he should not be trusted with an even larger community to organize.
There will be more investigation into this matter in the days ahead. Stay tuned. And stay engaged. It may mean the difference between electing a man and a party that believes this sort of outrage is good for the American people and a man who believes in service to country over to service to self.
It would seem to be so obvious as to not need saying that the best advocate for the Barack Obama campaign is Barack Obama. Ditto for John McCain. That being the case, it seems a no brainer that there would be controversy surrounding things a candidate says. That particular sword, however, cuts both ways. If the candidate is saying good things, newsworthy things, appropriate things - the candidate gets good press. On the other hand, if the candidate says ignorant things, stupid things, ill advised things - the candidate is going to get lots of press, likely of an undesireable variety.
Which brings us to the case of recent comments by Barack Obama. A few days ago, speaking to George Stephonopolous on matters of faith, Obama referred to his own faith as “my Muslim faith”. Yesterday, Obama made a reference to the old saw about “lipstick on a pig”. Both comments drew immediate fire from the Right and the national debate was joined.
Let me say at the outset that there is politics happening on both sides of the comment controversies. Discussion on the Right is that Obama has finally admitted that he is a Muslim and not a Christian and that he also has insulted Sarah Palin by calling her a pig. The Left has countered that the comments were taken out of context and that the other side is making mountains out of molehills.
For the record, I think the Left has a strong case when they argue the comments are being taken out of context. When the entire section of video is viewed for both comments as opposed to just the 5 second soundbites, it is clear that the Muslim remark was a mere slip of the tongue of the variety we’ve all made. The terms “Muslim” and “Christian” were both in the discussion and the wrong one came out connected to his faith. The lipstick comment was a wrap up of a discussion of Obama’s spin on McCain’s views and seems to be an appropriate use of the phrase. In this context, the Obama campaign should get a pass on the Muslim comment at least. The lipstick comment is more problematic.
Because the real problem for Obama isn’t what he said, it’s that he said it at all! The biggest complaint coming out of the Obama campaign over the last couple of days apart from the comment dustup is that Sarah Palin has not been interviewed by the media or let loose to speak freely. What Obama understands is that speaking publicly like that can be a very treacherous undertaking. They want Palin out and on tape so they can do to her what the Right is doing to Obama. Be it on policy or a verbal misstep, the Obama campaign wants the same exposure for Palin that Obama has been subject to. The problem, of course, is there is no guarantee Palin will be accomodating and provide the desired ammunition for her own political assassination at the hands of a cruel and amoral Left.
During the time frame in which Obama made the remarks for which he is being pilloried, Biden, McCain and Palin have all been on the stump. Owing to his proven history over decades, smart money was on Biden as the guy most likely to say stupid things in front of a camera. So far he has not although there’s a storm gathering around his comments on stem cell research and special needs children. Nor have McCain or Palin provided any verbal gaffes. But Obama has and that’s a problem. There maybe an explanation for what he actually meant. But there is no denying that he said what he said. It’s a problem for him now and these two comments may follow him for a long while. If he continues to add to them it is not going to get any better, regardless of the spin and explanation that come out of Obama’s campaign. One need only look at the consequences of one word, “Macaca”, to understand the import of Obama’s mistakes.
Obama is squandering his reputation as a good speaker while tightly scripted and living down to his reputation as a poor spontaneous speaker. The occasional slip of the tongue as evidenced by the “my Muslim faith” comment will tend to be less damaging. Everyone has done that and we understand. However, while Obama can legitimately claim his remarks about pigs and lipstick concerned John McCain, if he expects that anyone with a scintilla of intelligence will not make the connection between his comments and Palin’s comments then he’s not as sharp a knife as he would have us believe.
For whatever reason, Obama chose that phrase as opposed to any one of several others that would have illustrated the same point. Thus he can try and explain his meaning but he cannot realistically say he didn’t understand his comments would be taken as a swipe at Palin. Not personal - he wasn’t calling her a pig. But it strains credulity to the breaking point to ask me to believe he wasn’t trying to connect the popularity of Palin and her lipstick comment and take away some of the power and popularity of Palin’s words.
I don’t fault him for doing that. It’s smart politics. But such efforts don’t always work. This one didn’t. Obama and his campaign need to look for better attacks or just give up the practice if they cannot stop doing it so badly. Obama has enough negative baggage on his record and the issues without adding to the ammunition his opponents will use against him by handing them bullets and helping them load the gun. Obama can try to explain away his missteps but it’s clearly a losing fight. As Obama has famously said, you can put lipstick on a pig - but it’s still a pig!
Titled ‘Shattered’, it starts out asking the big question for everyone on the Left, “Can someone please tell me what the hell happened?” Obama supporters want the answer to offer substance to go with the stuff they’ve been shoveling. They know they won but haven’t yet figured out how. An answer would point them in the right direction as the diss Hillary strategy is no longer available. Cottle and the rest of Hillary’s supporters want answers to ward off the next pretender to Hillary’s throne.
I like Cottle’s assessment of the Hillary campaign.
… This presidential election was supposed to be a high-water mark for feminism. Hillary Clinton … wasn’t running as a Woman [or] to prove herself tough enough to hang with the Big Boys: [Her] strategy was to prove that she was tougher than the Big Boys. … Hillary’s candidacy was expected to showcase what it means to be a broad-shouldered, ass-kicking modern woman.
Iowa was where Hillary’s inevitability narrative unraveled, but New Hampshire was where she got the idea that redemption lay in the legions of gals who rallied ’round when the (mostly male) political establishment and punditocracy began salivating at the thought of her imminent demise. … Hillary’s now famous moment of teary-eyed vulnerability fueled their fury. …
And, just like that, the strong, proud, fearless, gender-transcendent Hillary morphed into a disrespected, mistreated victim. Grievance feminism came roaring back with a vengeance. …
… the Democratic National Committee was compelled to insert into its platform this statement: “We believe that standing up for our country means standing up against sexism and all intolerance. Demeaning portrayals of women cheapen our debates, dampen the dreams of our daughters, and deny us the contributions of too many. Responsibility lies with us all.”
Not even the primary’s resolution could end the drama. … the true dead-enders–an overwhelmingly female cohort–grew ever more marginalized and belligerent. … they were increasingly derided as overly emotional and downright nutty. … the extremism of Hillary dead-enders has played into all those tired stereotypes about women being fuzzy-headed and irrational.
The short version is Hillary talked tough but folded under pressure playing the gender card. Her supposed legendary leadership skills fizzled revealing a woman who couldn’t run a campaign, let alone a nation. The “If you don’t choose Hillary, you’re sexist!” group did garner her a loyal core group but it was unable to deliver the nomination. Democratic “girlie-fication” was so complete, PUMAs forced anti-sexist language into the formal platform. That was the extent of real Democratic support for women. Hillary was the feminist heroine struck down while on her holy quest.
Enter Sarah Palin. Determined to stick to her non-sexist guns, Cottle goes after Palin, not on the issue of gender, but on the issue of issues. Well, maybe not so much.
The Palin pick is disheartening on so many levels. For starters, even what little we know about the Alaska governor’s policy views is enough to make a traditional feminist weep. The staunchly conservative Palin not only opposes abortion rights (even in cases of rape or incest), she also supports abstinence-only sex education and takes a strict free-market approach toward health care. …
… Palin is abjectly unqualified to sit one heartbeat away from the presidency. She is less than two years into her first term as governor of a state with a population roughly equivalent to that of Baltimore or Fort Worth. Her minimal experience with national domestic issues is overshadowed only by her total lack of experience, or even apparent interest, in foreign affairs. This … makes the cynical tokenism of Palin’s selection all the more vivid.
Having analyzed Hillary well, Cottle fails to bring the same objectivity to Palin’s evaluation. She seems unable to conceive that choosing a woman of “intelligence, politcal savvy, [and] judgement”; a “smart, ambitious” woman; a “ballsy” woman who also happens to be a “staunchly conservative” woman could be anything other than “cynical tokenism”. Yes, she really did say all those nice things about Sarah Palin before dismissing her just because she’s a woman.
Strong, accomplished women are acceptable only if they’re Democrats. Drooling GOP neandrathals wouldn’t nominate one until the Left showed them the political value in it. Palin isn’t the nominee because she’s all the good things Cottle says about her. She’s the nominee because her vagina might attract votes. Palin is just a political whore being pimped by McCain.
At some point, Cottle and the Left must give up the unqualified token woman meme. It’s a non-starter and a bad-ender, too. Go back to championing the right to kill unborn babies, to tax the country into economic oblivion, to enshrine destructive energy policies into environmental utopian fantasies, to cling to 20th century solutions for 21st century problems and the rest of the bunk passing for serious issue debate on the Left. They’ll fare better with traditional losing arguments than with talking down the gender they’d love to praise but can’t just because of ideology.
But, perhaps Cottle is a faux feminist willing to put Party before private parts. Or maybe, deep down, she’s not a real feminist at all. Seeing Hillary implode at the first sign of trouble, perhaps she’s convinced if Hillary couldn’t weather the storm, no woman can. If the Left brings their own storm - going after Sarah with smears, lies and distortions starting with her family and moving to her person, her positions and Party, then doing it all again; belittle her, shame her, wound her enough and she’ll fold. If Hillary couldn’t take it, who is this upstart from the outside to think she can? At the end of the day, she’s just a woman, after all.
Who knows? Cottle may even be right. I don’t believe it, but she sure seems to. What to do, and what to say, however, if she turns out to be wrong? So who is the one advancing the feminist cause? And who is fighting a principled fight for the rights and opportunities of women? It would appear to be John McCain. It sure isn’t Barack Obama. And it’s not Michelle Cottle, either.
Thinking Cottle gets the nod for President of Hillary dead-enders - but what do I know - I only have a penis …
When unexpected good things happen, we call it Serendipity. Not so with unexpected bad things. The Law of Unintended Consequences, abbreviated LUC and pronounced “luck” as in “If it weren’t for bad LUCk I’d have no LUCk at all!”, is perhaps the most famous non-scientific Law. No need to be a rocket scientist to recognize no matter how hard you try to avoid it, bad things will happen which you did not foresee and did not intend.
BCM’s corollary to LUCk postulates the larger the pool of original actions from which to derive consequences of any sort, the greater the odds of realizing a Spontaneous Unintended Consequence, abbreviated SUC and pronounced “suck” as in, well, you’re likely way ahead of me here! All of which puts Democrats, with their emphasis on more regulation, bigger Government and expanding bureaucracy at huge risk for SUCking on a regular basis.
News reports this week show Dems SUCking in 2 ways which don’t bode well for Americans. As always, in November, remember who got you into this mess.
Both instances of Democratic SUCking stem from their Energy policy which refuses to acknowledge both the value of drilling for American oil and of increasing our ability to refine oil we are able to acquire from any source. While Democrats publicly pretend to hate high prices for items impacted by oil costs, privately they are jubilant. High fuel prices are particularly joyous as they force Americans to drive less thereby ushering in the long awaited dream of planetary salvation. But just here, things start to SUCk for the country.
World Net Daily reports BusinessWeek is running a story on a new Ford, the Fiesta ECOnetic. It gets a stunning 65 mpg, but the carmaker can’t sell it in the US. Only Europeans will be able to buy the ECOnetic.
“We know it’s an awesome vehicle,” says Ford America President Mark Fields. “But there are business reasons why we can’t sell it in the U.S.” The main one: The Fiesta ECOnetic runs on diesel.
Automakers such as Volkswagen (VLKAY) and Mercedes-Benz (DAI) have predicted for years that a technology called “clean diesel” would overcome many Americans’ antipathy to a fuel still often thought of as the smelly stuff that powers tractor trailers. Diesel vehicles now hitting the market with pollution-fighting technology are as clean or cleaner than gasoline and at least 30% more fuel-efficient.
Yet while half of all cars sold in Europe last year ran on diesel, the U.S. market remains relatively unfriendly to the fuel. Taxes aimed at commercial trucks mean diesel costs anywhere from 40 cents to $1 more per gallon than gasoline. Add to this the success of the Toyota Prius, and you can see why only 3% of cars in the U.S. use diesel. “Americans see hybrids as the darling,” says Global Insight auto analyst Philip Gott, “and diesel as old-tech.”
Higher taxes, higher production costs and decades of irresponsible environmentalism - all thanks to Democrats - leave Americans out of fuel, walking on the roadside. Meanwhile, world citizens in Europe reap benefits from American technology, manufacturing jobs and the economic benefit of both.
The second instance of Democrats as LUCky charms also comes via World Net Daily, this time pointing to an ABC News story that the Highway Trust Fund, in which monies are held to be disbursed to the several states for infrastructure upkeep and repair, will run out of money at the end of this month.
… the Transportation Department said that this month it is expecting to bring in $2.7 billion in gas tax revenues but anticipates needing $4.4 billion to reimburse states for their highway and road projects. The department said it will start the upcoming fiscal year that begins Oct. 1 with no money in the trust funds if patterns continue as is.
Why? The story reports that Americans are driving less due to the high cost of fuel. A lot less. Try 10 billion miles less in May of ‘08 than in May of ‘07. Music to Democratic ears. But wait. The Highway Trust Fund is kept chuck-full-o-bucks by fuel taxes. Less driving means less fuel purchases. Less fuel purchases means less revenue to the Fund. And less Fund revenue means that “…starting next week [The Transportation Department] will begin delaying payments to states …” for the projects they are working on. Oooops, the favorite Democratic tactic of raising taxes to generate income doesn’t work yet again!
The solution? Democrats want yet another $8 billion in tax money for the Fund. Is there no end to the SUCkiness? The Bush administration recently opposed that plan. Democrats merely criticize the President, pointing to projects that will suffer if the Fund stops paying. Leaving alone, for this post anyway, the waste inherent in sending money from the states to the Feds to be sent back to the states, another factor is at work here. Railing at the GOP, Democrats conveniently forget another truth.
In this highly charged political season, Transportation Secretary [Mary] Peters blamed the financial crisis on earmarks included in the last transportation bill, which she said amounted to $24 billion in pet projects.
The last transportation bill, the one passed by a Democratic Congress, the Congress with a 9% approval rating, contained enough Pork to fund the Highway Trust Fund for almost 6 months! But it’s the GOP who is wrong for not simply ponying up another $8 billion. Democrats in control of purse strings don’t have to exercise fiscal constraint or oversight. If Bush and Co. won’t go along, open fire on the GOP. If the Right continues to balk and Dems need another few billion dollars for something, they’ll just raise another tax.
“Well, you’ve sure got a lot to write about these days!” It almost never fails. When I tell people I’m a blogger and political activist, they almost always respond with those words. And it’s true. What I don’t have is a lot of time to write about the lot that I have to write about! And so it is today. I only recently finished listening to the speeches from last night by Fred Thompson and Joe Lieberman. They were powerful!
Both men gave what I believe to be outstanding speeches. The consensus on the Right is that had Thompson spoken like that early on and consistently, there may well have been a different nominee for the GOP. The tone of their remarks, however, were quite different.
The highlights for Thompson came as he spoke about McCain’s military service. Especially moving were his descriptions of McCain’s time as a POW. He did not argue that such an experience made him qualified to lead the Free World. He simply described what John McCain endured as a POW. It was, perhaps, the quietest portion of any convention speech ever. Literally, it was pin-drop-hearing quiet. What emerged was a portrait of a man of character. Character forged in a hellish nightmare we can only imagine. Character tested day after endless day. Character that it was impossible to know would be created in a man who would one day run for President. Enduring what he endured, McCain was just another POW who might or might not return to his country. If he did, who knew he would choose politics? He could just as easily gone into Real Estate or selling cars. My point is that he did not have to be the man he was in captivity. He chose to be that man when no one knew. And while it isn’t enough to qualify him for President, it speaks volumes for the character of the man seeking the office.
Fred Thompson said it this way, “For five-and-a-half years this went on. John McCain’s bones may have been broken but his spirit never was. Now, being a POW certainly doesn’t qualify anyone to be President. But it does reveal character. This is the kind of character that civilizations from the beginning of history have sought in their leaders. Strength. Courage. Humility. Wisdom. Duty. Honor. It’s pretty clear there are two questions we will never have to ask ourselves, “Who is this man?” and “Can we trust this man with the Presidency?””
Lieberman followed Thompson and, for me, the fact that he was speaking at all far overshadowed his remarks. What he said was truly powerful. He said things like, “I’m here to support John McCain because country matters more than party. … because John McCain’s whole life testifies to a great truth: being a Democrat or a Republican is important. But it is not more important than being an American. … Vote for the leader who, since the age of 17, when he raised his hand and took an oath to defend and protect our Constitution, has always put our country first.”
It was this synthesis of Left and Right, of Democrat and Republican that I found so fascinating, especially compared to what emerged from the DNC. Lieberman, the Democrat at the RNC, spoke overlooking a sea of Americans holding signs reading “Service” and “Country First!” Obama and Democrats at the DNC spoke to Democrats holding signs reading “Obama!” Lieberman, the Democrat at the RNC, heard Americans chanting “U-S-A!!” Obama and Democrats at the DNC heard Democrats chanting “O-bam-a!!” Lieberman, the Democrat at the RNC, called on all Americans to do what is right for the country and not merely what is best for a political party. Obama and Democrats at the DNC spoke mainly of their pride in being Democrats and not their joy at being Americans.
And who is this Joe Lieberman? It is important to answer the question properly. He is not just one of the lone voices on the Left who gets it right on the war, although he is that. He is not just a Democrat who got thrown under the bus when he publicly broke with his Party on the war, although he is also that. He is not just a Democrat who speaks with authority on reaching across the aisle because he did so at great cost to himself, although he is that, too.
What Joe Lieberman is, more importantly than all of those things, is the running mate of Al Gore in 2000. And the import of that is not that he was a former member of the Democratic ticket now endorsing the GOP nominee. The import of Lieberman’s endorsement is this. Had the Left been successful in winning the White House with Gore/Lieberman in 2000, then Lieberman’s 2008 speech at a national convention would have stood a good chance of being an acceptance speech as the Democratic nominee! Instead, he comes humbly to support a man not in his party, but one he feels is best for his country. I don’t know about you but I find that stunning!
Tonight, the world gets a first glimpse at history in the making. Sarah Palin speaks to the GOP faithful, the lurking Left and the waiting world. 24 years ago, Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman nominated for VP. Like Obama/Biden, the Mondale/Ferraro ticket was incredibly liberal and went down in flames of historic proportions to a second Reagan/Bush term. For many reasons, most of them realized via hindsight, McCain/Palin have a far better chance of producing an historic “first woman as VP” result than Mondale/Ferraro ever did. A good start to that chance begins in just a couple of hours with her acceptance speech. The rest of the road will be played out over the next 60 days in a sprint to the Oval Office.
Only one side can win that race. It is my sincere hope that the side that emphasizes Country over Career, People over Party and Results over Rhetoric prevail in that race. If not, buckle in for a very rough ride.
It was about as interesting as watching paint dry until I realized something.
On Monday night, the following speakers are listed:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.)
U.S. Sen. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.)
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.)
On Tuesday night these folks are slated to speak:
Former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani
Gov. Sarah Palin (Alaska)
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (Ark.)
Former Gov. Tom Ridge (Pa.)
Former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson (Tenn.)
Wednesday night’s roster sports the following:
Gov. Bobby Jindal (La.)
Former Gov. Mitt Romney (Mass.)
U.S. Rep. Mike Pence (Ind.)
And closing night has the final slate including:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty (Minn.)
Former U.S. Sen. Bill Frist (Tenn.)
None of this would be anything earthshattering except that also slated to speak on Wednesday is the following person:
Republican Party’s Vice Presidential Nominee
If we assume the RNC is not being clever, there are a lot of names on the list that are NOT going to be the GOP’s VP nominee. Now the suspense is killing me …
