December 1-2, 2009
Dec 01 03:23 Spend, Spend, Spend, Borrow, Borrow, Borrow Dec 01 08:48 Obama State Dept. Doesn't Fully Recognize Clean Election Dec 01 10:13 That's Predictable Dec 01 21:09 How Much Trouble Are Dems In? Dec 01 22:42 President Obama's Speech Doesn't Fit Together Dec 02 03:24 Bachmann, Coleman Statements on Afghanistan Policy Dec 02 14:16 Pickup Potential Dec 02 22:07 Critics Not Welcome?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Spend, Spend, Spend, Borrow, Borrow, Borrow
It isn't surprising that the DFL is intent on putting together a gigantic bonding bill which they'll tout as their jobs bill. While it's true that the bonding bill will include important infrastructure maintenance projects, it's statistically provable that there are thousands fewer construction jobs after 2 $1,000,000,000+ bonding bills.
The DFL is doing what they always do. They're looking busy so they can tell people that they tried. It's a copout. If they wanted to create jobs, they'd stop with their out-of-control spending and their accompanying tax increases. The DFL hasn't noticed but businesses are leaving the state.
VitalMedix left Minnesota because Wisconsin has better angel investment tax laws . Distillers have left southern Minnesota because Minnesota's annual fee is $30,000 whereas Iowa's fee is $350 a year .
The DFL insists that the way to grow jobs is by having the government spend lots of money on......stuff. Meanwhile, North Dakota cut their taxes and are recruiting people from Ohio to fill the job openings they have. Because of the steps they took, North Dakota will be prosperous for the next generation or more. The top tax rate in North Dakota is 4.86%. It's worth noting that that's the rate for singles or for married couples filing jointly. (BTW, North Dakota's unemployment rate for October, 2009 was 3.2%. I'm sure that's just coincidence. It can't have anything to do with their cutting taxes, right?)
When will the DFL stop singing the everybody-should-pay-their-fair-share song?
It's time that they started asking whether their tax policies are driving businesses to Wisconsin, North Dakota and Iowa. They clearly are, which is why the Furtune 500 companies still left in Minnesota have moved their production facilities to other states. All that's left of them in Minnesota are their headquarters.
Rep. Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, head of a House bonding committee, said she was hoping for about $1 billion in borrowing in the 2010 bonding bill. Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, wants a $1.5 billion bill.We're already running major deficits. Minnesota's bond rating is being pushed to the limit and Reps. Rukavina and Housman want to break the bank on a bonding bill that might help a little for a short period of time.
Minnesotans, that's what fiscal irresponsibility looks like. It's time that Minnesota took steps that actually committed Minnesota to a path of fiscal responsibility. It's time that we stopped saying spend, spend, spend. The only way we'll ever accomplish either of those things is by eliminating the DFL majorities in the House and Senate.
Posted Tuesday, December 1, 2009 3:29 AM
No comments.
Obama State Dept. Doesn't Fully Recognize Clean Election
When Ahmadinejad committed voter fraud in Iran, the people rioted. The Obama administration sided with the Iranian mullahs. When the Chavez-backed thug tried an end run around the Honduran Constitution, the Honduran Congress took the proper steps to remove him. The Honduran Supreme Court then ruled that President Zelaya tried to ignore the Constitution and that the Honduran Congress had followed the rule of law in ousting him.
Despite all this, the Obama administration sided with the dictatorial thug Zelaya, calling it a coup. Now the Obama administration that sided with the dictatorial thug isn't recognizing the newly-elected Honduran president :
The U.S. State Department says Sunday's presidential election in Honduras was a significant, but insufficient step, to end to political crisis that began there in June with the ouster of President Manuel Zelaya. U.S. officials are stopping short of recognizing opposition candidate Porfirio Lobo as the country's next president.I'm ashamed to identify myself with this administration. For the first time in our nation's history, an administration has recognized the fraud-filled election of a dictatorial thug while stopping short of fully recognizing elections it says "met international standards for fairness and transparency."
The State Department says the Honduran election met international standards for fairness and transparency and it has commended Porfirio Lobo for what it termed an "ample victory".
But at the same time, it stopped short of formally recognizing Lobo as the country's next president and says Honduras must still take steps toward political reconciliation before it can emerge from the isolation brought by the June 28 ouster of President Zelaya.
With its actions, the Obama administration has shown where its priorities lie. This administration puts a higher priority on playing doormat to dictatorial thugs than it puts on standing with freedom-loving people who refuse to be oppressed by dictatorial thugs who disrespect their own constitution.
If JFK, Scoop Jackson, Daniel Patrick Moynihan or Hubert Humphrey were still alive, they'd be giving President Obama a tonguelashing he'd never forget. Those men stood for freedom. They fiercely fought for liberty. This administration has just shown that they don't care about liberty as much as they care about playing the world's doormat for tinpot dictators.
The United States had always fought for liberty. Freedom loving nations now have another reason to not trust the Obama administration. The Obama administration just gave told the world that it doesn't stand for liberty or for the rule of law.
SHAMEFUL.
Posted Tuesday, December 1, 2009 8:48 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 01-Dec-09 10:46 AM
Gary says, "I'm ashamed to identify myself with this administration."
You don't. That was a gratuitous sentence. I was very, very ashamed of the actions of Bush-Cheney-Rice.
I never identified myself with that cabal.
You are the same with Obama-Biden-Clinton, are you not?
I realize it's one point in a thread of argument, but ---
Comment 2 by eric z. at 01-Dec-09 10:53 AM
"The United States had always fought for liberty." Samoza? Marcos? Suharto? Idi Amin? Mobuto? The Saudi royals? Shah? The contras? The Allende coup? Franco?
If you say so, it must be so, so why look at puppet evidence ---
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 01-Dec-09 12:17 PM
President Obama makes Nixon look honorable.
Let's remember that President Obama threw bankruptcy laws under the bus when he did the bailout of the UAW under the guise of bailing out GM.
Let's remember that he's the dirtbag that ended the DC voucher system as a payoff to the teachers' union rather than helping underprivileged children.
In short, President Obama is a disgusting, vile person with a good PR person.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 01-Dec-09 07:19 PM
Gary:
A bunch of insane liberal democrats thought that George Bush was going to do something to retain the presidency. How come the Democrats can't see that a man who had no right to run for his country's presidency was trying to do what George Bush was being accused of?
Or is this what Obama is going to do in January 2013 after he is voted out of office.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
That's Predictable
I'm not shocked to find out that John Murtha doesn't think military victory is achievable in Afghanistan . He's been a defeatist since the 1980s.
Democratic Rep. John Murtha, just back from a fact-finding trip to Afghanistan, said
Monday that he never got a clear definition of what constitutes an "achievable victory" for the United States and fears that American commanders are assuming more time for the war effort than voters at home will allow.john Murtha has been declaring defeat for a long time. He declared defeat in Somalia while our troops were still fighting there. After the Clinton administration pulled out on Murtha's advice, Osama bin Laden told an ABC correspondent that America was a paper tiger.
"I am still very nervous about this whole thing," Murtha told POLITICO. "If you had 10 years, it might work; if you had five, you could make a difference. But you don't have that long."
A top Democrat on military matters, the Pennsylvania lawmaker captures the skepticism facing the White House as President Barack Obama prepares to commit up to 35,000 more troops to the war effort. Obama has chosen a military forum, West Point, for his nationally televised speech Tuesday night, but Congress is the real test and a better reflection of the unease among everyday Americans.
Rep. Murtha told the Bush administration that Iraq was fighting a civil war and that a military victory was impossible. Fortunately for Iraq, the Bush administration ignored Murtha's advice. Instead of following Murtha's defeatist advice, President Bush doubled down with the surge and won a decisive victory. They defeated the insurgents and the Iranians while giving Iraqis the gift of liberty.
On another note, it's insulting to hear David Rogers say that "everyday Americans" are uneasy with winning a war. By nature, we LOVE winning wars. It's true that a small portion of Democratic pacifists are apprehensive but they don't even make up a majority of their party, much less a majority of Americans.
Rep. Murtha, it's time you retired. It's time you quit waving the white flag of defeat. They say that there's no such thing as an ex-Marine. You're proof that there is. You're a national disgrace because you stand in opposition to the U.S. military's winning wars.
Posted Tuesday, December 1, 2009 10:13 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 01-Dec-09 10:41 AM
What's winning, there?
What's the exit strategy, if you cannot say, clearly, at this point we say we won and are scaling down.
Otherwise, it's Vietnam all over again.
What are the objectives?
A stable pipeline locale, a stable mining locale? Balkanization in order to make it harder for Russia, Iran, India and China to become a dominant presence in the "---stans"?
What, Gary, is the point of this war?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Dec-09 03:46 PM
Forget exit strategies. We didn't have an exit strategy for WWI or WWII. Our exit strategy should be when the terrorists & their support infrastructure are dead, we leave.
According to what I've seen thus far, Afghanistan under Obama would be a worse defeat than Vietnam. At least with Vietnam, there was no chance that the Soviets would follow us home & attack us here in the United States. That can't be said here.
The point is to destroy the terrorist network to the extent that that's possible.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 01-Dec-09 02:47 PM
http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/12/01/13889/michele_bachmann_hoping_obama_will_address_ultimate_goal_in_afghanistan
The interesting thing, these were questions that existed all the time this individual was a pom-pom girl for Bush-Cheney war.
Now even she is askng, what's it all about.
It might be a story, Gary, to contact her office - whoever is still there on staff these days, to flesh out her concerns and how they fit yours.
How Much Trouble Are Dems In?
The first telltale sign that the Democrats are in trouble in 2010 is found in Scott Rasmussen's polling . Rumor has it that the DNC and the Obama administration have started buying Maalox by the case. Here's why they're justified:
Voters remain more confident in Republicans than in Democrats this month on virtually all of the key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. But that confidence is not quite as strong as a month ago when the GOP led on all 10.The Democrats are finally paying the price for pushing their radical agenda. They won't recover until they stop pushing President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's radical agenda.
New Rasmussen Reports national telephone surveying finds Republicans maintaining a double-digit lead on the issue of the economy, 48% to 36%. This is roughly comparable to a month ago.
The Democrats' radical agenda, and the resulting bad polling numbers, is having its effects :
Over the last week, three Democratic candidates touted by national strategists abruptly withdrew from their races: Solano Beach Councilman Dave Roberts (running against California Rep. Brian Bilbray), state Rep. Todd Book (running against Ohio Rep. Jean Schmidt) and Tennessee Commerce and Insurance Commissioner Paula Flowers (in the seat held by retiring Rep. Zach Wamp).Most likely, Roberts, Book and Flowers probably thought that the sour national mood was negatively affecting their campaigns so they said no to running in this environment. Those races aren't the only ones being affected by the national anti-Democrat mood:
In a neutral political environment, the seats held by Bilbray, Schmidt, and the open Tennessee seat would be enticing targets for Democrats. Democrats aggressively contested the first two seats in both 2006 and 2008, and experienced unexpected success in Southern open seats over the last two elections.
But in 2010, defense is the name of the game for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which is defending several dozens vulnerable freshmen and second-term members, while also protecting veteran members who could find themselves in newfound trouble. It will be a lot more challenging for a first-time candidate running in a tough district to get financial support from the DCCC when the party is worried about defending its own.
Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), who didn't even face a Republican opponent last year, now looks like he could be running against a top-tier challenger in state Sen. Jim Tracy as he vies for a 14th term in the House. Rep. John Spratt (D-S.C.), one of the most influential Democrats in the House, is poised to face a serious challenge from state senator Mick Mulvaney , who has quickly moved up the political ranks in South Carolina. Two leading Republicans are already jumping in to run for the seat of retiring Rep. Dennis Moore (D-Kan.), while no Democrats have yet stepped forward.If this continues, the Democrats will find themselves in the underdog role of staying in the majority in the House. It's still too early to predict that but people's positions are souring, then hardening. The Democrats' insistence on passing helath care reform while ignoring growing the economy is playing a major role in the national mood.
The conventional wisdom is that the Democrats will be hurt if they don't pass health care legislation, which is understandable if you're looking solely at the base. It's insanity, however, if you factor in independents swinging dramatically against the Democrats. Neither side wins if they only turn out their base. The only way to win big victories is by appealing to independents. Right now, the GOP is doing a dramatically better job of appealing to independents than the Democrats are.
The proof of which way this goes will come on Election Day, 2010. If things don't improve dramatically for Democrats, President Obama might well be fighting a hostile Congress in 2011.
Posted Tuesday, December 1, 2009 9:16 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 02-Dec-09 10:11 AM
Each district ends up being a two-way choice. Unless the GOP fields attractive candidates and presents a coherent message beyond the hollow Reagan promises of lowering taxes and only doing it for the rich, a trend could continue.
With Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann having usurped the position of "voice of the party" you might consider from that side a purge, and a view to court moderates. Absent that, it's not a big tent as much as a tent revival show moving town to town. Some loud and incoherent folks might be best thrown under the train, for the good of the future of the GOP.
President Obama's Speech Doesn't Fit Together
President Obama's speech at West Point tonight was a different speech than any I've ever seen him give before. It seemed disjointed and unorganized. Several things he said stood out for me tonight, starting with this comment:
Under the banner of this domestic unity and international legitimacy, and only after the Taliban refused to turn over Osama bin Laden, we sent our troops into Afghanistan. Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed. The Taliban was driven from power and pushed back on its heels. A place that had known decades of fear now had reason to hope. At a conference convened by the U.N., a provisional government was established under President Hamid Karzai. And an International Security Assistance Force was established to help bring a lasting peace to a war-torn country.Think about this sentence:
Within a matter of months, al Qaeda was scattered and many of its operatives were killed.Think about that statement against this backdrop: It took President Obama more time to decide on a strategy for fighting the war than it took to scatter al-Qa'ida and kill many of its top operatives. That isn't leadership. That's moisten-a-finger procrastination. One post I read earlier tonight reminded President Obama that he was "president of the United States, not the president of a university." That sums things up perfectly.
Here's another odd paragraph:
Today, after extraordinary costs, we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end. We will remove our combat brigades from Iraq by the end of next summer, and all of our troops by the end of 2011. That we are doing so is a testament to the character of the men and women in uniform. (Applause.) Thanks to their courage, grit and perseverance, we have given Iraqis a chance to shape their future, and we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people.Thanks to President Bush's steadfast desire to win that war and thanks to the military for killing the insurgents, the terrorists and the Iranians, Iraq now has a future to shape via its parliament. Had then-Sen. Obama cast the deciding vote, Iraq would've been left to the tender mercies of the Iranians in southern Iraq and AQI in northern Iraq.
The point I'm making is that that isn't a reminder I would've used in a speech meant to rally troop morale in Afghanistan and it isn't the type of reminder that Afghanistan needed of President Obama's fickleness towards war.
Here's another odd section of the speech:
This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda. It is from here that we were attacked on 9/11, and it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak. This is no idle danger; no hypothetical threat. In the last few months alone, we have apprehended extremists within our borders who were sent here from the border region of Afghanistan and Pakistan to commit new acts of terror. And this danger will only grow if the region slides backwards, and al Qaeda can operate with impunity. We must keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and to do that, we must increase the stability and capacity of our partners in the region.No sooner had he said that then he said this:
We will meet these objectives in three ways. First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.If a place is "the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda", why is President Obama talking about exiting 18 after we've started? This doesn't instill confidence in the troops that he's serious about fighting this war to the finish.
No Obama speech is complete without the appearance of the strawman argument. Here's tonight's appearance:
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now, and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance, would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.The group referenced in the first paragraph are clearly the people of the anti-war Left. Like Michael Moore, they're opposed to war even when winning's imperative to preventing future terrorist attacks. It isn't a totally accurate dpeiction of the Anti-War Left but it'll work for President Obama'a purposes.
Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.
Finally, there are those who oppose identifying a time frame for our transition to Afghan responsibility. Indeed, some call for a more dramatic and open-ended escalation of our war effort, one that would commit us to a nation-building project of up to a decade. I reject this course because it sets goals that are beyond what can be achieved at a reasonable cost, and what we need to achieve to secure our interests. Furthermore, the absence of a time frame for transition would deny us any sense of urgency in working with the Afghan government. It must be clear that Afghans will have to take responsibility for their security, and that America has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan.
The group referenced in the third paragraph is obviously the 'in-it-to-win-it' part of the GOP. Again, the depiction isn't accurate but it's how President Obama chooses to characterize what used to be called the Victory Caucus position. The Victory Caucus contingent isn't for open-ended war. They're just for not publicly announcing timeframes so the enemy doesn't know how long they'll have to hold out until we leave.
Timetables are liberalspeak for cutting and running.
Finally, I'm having difficulty identifying the group highlighted in the second paragraph. I haven't heard anyone who's advocated the status quo. I've heard the anti-war Left argue agaisnt adding troops. I've heard conservative hawks who've advocated giving Gen. McChrystal the troops he's asked for so he could bring the troops home in victory. I havne't heard people argue that the status quo is acceptable.
The rest of the speech had a meandering, messageless tone to it. He talked about confronting terrorists in Somalia and Yemen but didn't talk about contfronting them militarily. Then he talked about diplomacy something before talking about the economy before finishing with this bizarre ending:
America, we are passing through a time of great trial. And the message that we send in the midst of these storms must be clear: that our cause is just, our resolve unwavering. We will go forward with the confidence that right makes might, and with the commitment to forge an America that is safer, a world that is more secure, and a future that represents not the deepest of fears but the highest of hopes.How can he say these things after going on a worldwide apology tour? It's just truly bizarre, which is fitting for this speech.
Finally, I never got the sense that President Obama's heart was in this speech. For the most part, he read the lines just fine. The speech was a little too all-over-the-map but it wasn't the problem. At the end of the day, he didn't make the case with any fire in his belly. He certainly didn't instill in the troops a steadfast commitment to the mission they'll soon be waging.
Most importantly, he didn't tell the Afghan government or our allies that he wouldn't run at the first hint of trouble. Frankly, if I had to grade the content and delivery of the speech, I'd give the content a C- and the delivery a D.
We expect better from our commander-in-chief.
Posted Tuesday, December 1, 2009 10:49 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 02-Dec-09 10:06 AM
Is your point that you view this is the first troop escalation there since the first of the year? Or that the first did not matter? Facts are facts. Is your hope that the multi-deployment pattern in Iraq just be extended now via sending the same battle weary troops from Iraq to Afghanistan? At some point there's burnout. Big question, would you restore the draft? Or is it that you sit back and criticize everything, either way he moves, and in advance and in hindsight, without any better answer to offer than Obama's moves? It seems the latter, Gary.
Bachmann, Coleman Statements on Afghanistan Policy
Last night, I got this statement from Rep. Michele Bachmann's office on President Obama's speech at West Point:
After several long months of deliberation, I'm pleased that the President has finally decided to follow the recommendation of our commanding officer in Afghanistan and deploy more troops to the country. As the President has said, the war in Afghanistan is a war of necessity. However, I sincerely hope that the President is truly committed to victory. While it's important to acknowledge that U.S. forces will not be in Afghanistan forever, we must not have a concrete time line for withdrawal as it will ultimately hurt our effort and energize our enemies.Former Sen. Norm Coleman issued this statement after President Obama's speech:
Clearly, it's in the vital interests of the United States to defeat the Taliban, destroy Al Qaeda, and establish a free, sovereign Afghanistan that can govern and look after its own people. Anything less and we're guaranteeing almost certain instability and chaos in the region. But going forward, we must be in it to win it because if we engage in this effort halfheartedly, then the war is already lost.
I do give Obama credit for stating our security requires this increased troop presence. But why isn't that still the case in 2012? We set deadlines for withdrawal in iraq after the surge proved successful. Here, we are invitng the Taliban to wait us out.Rep. Bachmann and Sen. Coleman clearly want the military to win this fight and this war. It's in that context that they both expressed reservations about the timetables President Obama hinted at during his speech.
I mentioned in this post that it seemed strange to hear this in President Obama's speech:
This is the epicenter of violent extremism practiced by al Qaeda.then hear this a few short sentences later:
First, we will pursue a military strategy that will break the Taliban's momentum and increase Afghanistan's capacity over the next 18 months.I don't know how you go from saying that Afghanistan is "the epicenter of violent extremism" where al-Qa'ida planned the 9/11 attacks to saying that the increase in troops will last 18 months. Either it's a serious threat that must be defeated or it isn't. Triangulation doesn't work in this situation. To use a poker metaphor, with Afghanistan, you're either all in or you're folding.
To anchor one foot in each camp is a great way to put yourself east of the rock and west of the hard place.
I hope the strategy works. I definitely have confidence in Gen. McChrystal and Gen. Petraeus. I can't say the same thing of President Obama. Still, I'm willing to give him the opportunity to succeed without criticizing his policy.
Posted Wednesday, December 2, 2009 3:24 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 02-Dec-09 10:01 AM
Bud Grant almost always kicked the field goal, especially on those goal line situations, first and goal from the three, etc.
His philosophy is you had three downs to do it, why expect you'll do it on fourth.
And if you trail in regulation time, you don't get overtime.
Just a pair of thoughts, for a football fan.
Did you notice the complete lack of detail on how to motivate Karzi to cease being a corrupt SOB?
Ditto for how to motivate the Pakistani side of that border to mess with a situation that's given them years of leverage.
The devil's in the details; but tactics are being left to McChrystal - Obama's being like the team owner, to go back to football stories.
Pickup Potential
Republicans got another bit of good news Tuesday when Rep. John Tanner, (D-TN), announced that he's retiring at the end of this term :
Tanner released a statement late tonight confirming the news. "Betty Ann and I had considered retiring in 2007 at the end of the 110th Congress, were it not for the fact that our nation had the chance to elect an American as President of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly at this critical moment in the war in Afghanistan," he wrote. "However, we believed we owed it to our country to stay and fulfill this term of office as NATO PA President. This mandate expires in November 2010, and therefore, we have made the decision not to seek re-election to Congress."Earlier, I mentioned that Dennis Moore, (D-KS), was retiring, giving the GOP a great shot at picking up both seats:
Both men represent districts that voted heavily for Pres. Bush twice; in '08, Tanner's CD gave Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) a 56%-43% margin, while Moore's Kansas City-based seat gave Pres. Obama a narrow 51%-48% margin.I've heard that two high quality candidates have emerged on the GOP side for Moore's seat and that Democrats are shying away from running in that seat. Meanwhile, Tanner's district should represent a strong pickup opportunity because the only thing that kept getting Rep. Tanner elected in that district was Rep. Tanner.
In that respect, it's much like MN-7, where Collin Peterson is the only thing that's keeping the district in DFL hands. The minute he retires, that district will likely flip into GOP hands.
It'll be interesting to see if other veteran Democrats announce their retirements rather than getting defeated in November, 2010. Chris van Hollen has his work ahead of him to keep Democratic retirements to a minimum. Alot of Democratic open seats to defend will make his job that much more difficult. the last thing Rep. van Hollen needs is additional challenges. I suspect that he's already up to his eyeballs in challenges.
Posted Wednesday, December 2, 2009 2:22 PM
Comment 1 by Ed Kohler at 02-Dec-09 07:11 PM
Sounds like a smart move on aging incumbent's part. They go out on top while backing their preferred heir who may or may not have what it takes to win, but at least they gain the visibility of running so two years later they can take a serious shot at the 1-term incumbent.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 03-Dec-09 08:24 AM
Gary, do you have any idea, percentages by Dems and GOP or in aggregate, but percentages of those "retiring" that actually leave DC and spend more time with family? My bet is that's said a lot, and lobbying just sort of happens to sweep them back or keep them to where they never leave and go back "home." Anyway, both parties have people stepping down, so that there is no incumbency advantage. You are correct, it will be interesting to see if the Obama coattails while in office are effective. He did have a landslide victory, but Bush has slunk away and not said boo, and people do have such short attention spans and memories, in politics. Has Newt figured a way to form a website and organization to make money off of flogging candidate possibilities for "open" situations? It seems a natural that he'd be there, doing that.
Critics Not Welcome?
True to form, the only people attending President Obama's job summit will be people who agree with him. I'm confident now that I know that the Obama administration will have a photo-op event with the people who've created this robust economy.
Confirmed attendees include liberal economists credited with shaping the $787 billion stimulus package, union leaders, environmental advocates and executives from Google and other blue-chip firms.That information tells me that Thursday's event is purely a photo-op event. Not that I'm surprised but I didn't take this summit seriously from the time it was announced.
"He's going to get lots of recommendations to spend more money," said Peter Morici, a professor at the University of Maryland's Robert H. Smith School of Business. "These are the very same people who gave us the stimulus package. My feeling is we're not going to get what we need, and that's a complete change in direction on economic policy."
I can't take Thursday's summit seriously since it's being attended by the same people who put the less-than-stimulating stimulus bill together. Rewarding failure isn't what I'd do, which is precisely what President Obama is doing. President Obama is essentially saying that he'll trust the people who failed before because they share his ideology.
In 1992, Bill Clinton said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results. By Bill Clinton's definition, President Obama is engaging in economic insanity.
Critics are making their voices heard:
"The panel does not include free-market voices who will contend the administration is spending too much or interfering too much in the economy, or that it is hurting job creation by increasing the burden of taxes and government debt," said Josh Barro, a senior fellow on fiscal policy at the conservative-leaning Manhattan Institute. "I expect these economists will generally call for more Keynesian stimulus, more deficit spending and more aid to state governments."Simply put, businesses won't invest their money until they know how much their labor costs will be. The Democrats are standing in the way of creating jobs with their health care legislation. The Democrats' legislation are filled with multiple tax increases, from fining people who don't buy insurance to taxing small businesses who dump their workers into the public option to taxing medical device manufacturers.
That's before talking about the Bush tax cuts expiring, which is a major tax increase by itself, or about controlling spending.
It's clear that businesses aren't buying into the administration's spin that the health care legislation will slow down federal spending. They've seen how entitlements cost exponentially more than the initial projections.
After last fall's credit crisis, we needed a steadying hand. We needed traditional solutions. We needed to get spending under control. Instead, we got the Obama administration and the Democrats' out-of-control spending binge.
Small businesses know that all the happy talk and all the photo-ops in the world won't help them investing in their businesses and creating jobs. When the sun sets, the reality is that this administration is about styling but it isn't about substantive solutions.
That's why we've got to run them out of DC ASAP.
Posted Wednesday, December 2, 2009 10:11 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 03-Dec-09 08:18 AM
I did not get invited either. I did not get any of the first phase stimulus money either. Why are you and I being left out, Gary? I want my recognition, my slice of the pie. Bloggers get no respect.
