December 14-17, 2007
Dec 14 12:01 Bush Surging Dec 15 05:37 Too Little, Too Late? Dec 16 14:03 DMR Endorses Hillary Dec 17 14:26 The Epitome of Arrogance Dec 17 17:03 Dems Fade Again; Bush Gains Another Victory
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006
Bush Surging
That's the only conclusion you can draw from recent events. This Hill article makes the case persuasively:
Roundly criticized back in 2001 for his position on stem cell research, the president's resolve and strength to draw a moral boundary line to protect innocent unborn life has been vindicated. Despite the yammering that the president had hampered scientific progress in stem cell research, despite the vicious demagogy and false claims that if the president hadn't placed restrictions on how federal funds were spent, people would rise and walk from their wheelchairs, scientists announced last week they could produce an embryo-free way to produce genetically matched stem cells. Or put another way, the president's decision to draw a bright moral line against destroying human life while providing federal dollars for the first time to stimulate stem cell research has proven successful. The silence in the media about this remarkable development has been deafening.Democrats have or are in the process of giving into each of President Bush's demands. They're stripping out the earmarks from the omnibus appropriations bill currently making its way through Congress. They'll soon be forced into passing a clean Iraq supplemental. As a result of these 'capitulations', they're fighting with each other bigtime . The Democratic firing squad is out in full force, circular formation and all.
Equally deafening have been the media (and congressional Democrats') reaction to success on the ground in Iraq. After linking vital resources to fight the war on terrorism to a timetable for troop withdrawals, Congress has failed on numerous occasions in recent months to hamstring the president's ability to conduct the war as commander in chief. And despite claims that the surge of troops and the leadership of Gen. David Petraeus and President Bush have failed, even ardent foe Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) has concluded that the surge in Iraq is working.
Not content to celebrate the success of our brave men and women in uniform who put their lives on the line every day to provide stability in a volatile region of the world, congressional Democrats now claim that while the surge might be working, the Iraqis have "failed" to produce meaningful political results on the ground. Once again, facts get in the way of those on the Hill who are pressing, wishing, for an American defeat on the ground in Iraq.
What was supposed to be a year of major Democratic gains has turned into a year of turbulence, defeat and hostility towards their leadership. They haven't passed the budget even though we're one quarter into FY08. They're making incendiary statements that are alienating independents. Here's an example of that rhetoric:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lashed out at Republicans on Thursday, saying they want the Iraq war to drag on and are ignoring the public's priorities. "They like this war. They want this war to continue," Pelosi, D- Calif., told reporters. She expressed frustration over Republicans' ability to force majority Democrats to yield ground on taxes, spending, energy, war spending and other matters.This won't play well with voters. They know that nobody likes war. They also know that some wars must be fought to win. The public clearly doesn't like this war but they also know that it needs to be won. Pelosi's saying that Republicans like war was foolish.
"We thought that they shared the view of so many people in our country that we needed a new direction in Iraq," Pelosi said at her weekly news conference in the Capitol. "But the Republicans have made it very clear that this is not just George Bush's war. This is the war of the Republicans in Congress."
They're sniping at each other. Here's an example of the Democrats' sniping :
Asked about his decision on government funding, House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) groused to the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call: I'll tell you how soon I will make a decision when I know how soon the Senate sells us out."While the Democratic ship is taking on water and sinking, President Bush and the Congressional Republicans have broken out the bilge pumps, which has led to the bailing out of the GOP 'ship'.
Posted Friday, December 14, 2007 12:04 PM
No comments.
Too Little, Too Late?
Campaign correspondents are wondering if Fred Thompson's performance in Wednesday's debate was too little too late. It's a fair question asked by no less a serious man than NRO's Byron York . The conventional wisdom is that it is. It might play out that way but I have an important question to ask of primary voters and caucusgoers:
Should it ever be too late to support the smartest man on stage in the Republican debates? Let me illustrate my point by asking some questions about Sen. Thompson's positions on the key issues of the day.
- Were you impressed by Sen. Thompson's intent to reform entitlements?
- Were you impressed with his standing down "Nurse Ratchet"?
- Did you like it when he said that the NEA was the single biggest thing standing in the way of education reform?
- Do you like Sen. Thompson's unwavering support for the Tenth Amendment and the principles of federalism?
- When Sen. Thompson talks about shutting off the flow of illegal immigrants by beefing up the border partol and building the wall, do you find him credible?
- When Sen. Thompson says that he'd lay out for the American people the fight we're facing with the jihadists, is it apparent that his plan is intelligent and aggressive?
- Does it bother you that Gov. Romney says that he's for local control of education in one sentence, then touts the fact that Massachusetts implemented many of NCLB's provisions before it became law?
- Are you convinced that Mitt Romney is solidly pro life? If you're convinced of that, how do you reconcile the fact that Gov. Romney put a higher priority on signing a single payer health care bill than on fighting against publicly funded abortions?
- When Gov. Romney said that he'd sign a federal law banning abortion in a post-Roe v. Wade world, was it more likely that Gov. Romney was saying that federalism wasn't important? Or that he was simply pandering for votes?
Ask yourself if you've ever heard him give an unsatisfactory answer. Ask yourself if you agree with Sen. Thompson that federalism and libertarianism were the most important underpinnings for your policies? Ask yourself how high a priority you put on fiscal sanity, nominating and confirming strict constructionist judges and defeating the jihadists.
I'd submit that Sen. Thompson is your candidate if you put a high priority on a candidate who believes passionately in federalism and libertarianism. I'd also submit that Sen. Thompson is your candidate if you're looking for someone who is fiscally responsible, reform-minded and strong on national security and immigration.
Posted Saturday, December 15, 2007 11:02 AM
No comments.
DMR Endorses Hillary
The fact that the Des Moines Register endorsed Hillary shouldn't shock anyone. The thing that struck me is their obvious liberal bias. That isn't to say that I didn't expect them to be biased. I did. Here's the part that struck me:
Beyond their personal appeal, the candidates have outlined ambitious policy proposals on health care, education and rural policy. Yet these proposals do little to help separate the field. Their plans are similar, reflecting a growing consensus in the party about how to approach priority issues.It's obvious that the DMR didn't consider foreign policy beyond losing the war in Iraq a serious challenge. They didn't talk about shutting down illegal immigration. They didn't consider the GWOT one of the "enormous challenges" facing the US.
The choice, then, comes down to preparedness: Who is best prepared to confront the enormous challenges the nation faces, from ending the Iraq war to shoring up America's middle class to confronting global climate change?
What type of newspaper thinks that global climate change is a bigger challenge than killing jihadists or stopping illegal immigration? I can understand how these are important issues to Democratic caucusgoers but I can't understand why these issues are important to anyone that's seriously studied global warming. Here's another laughable section of their endorsement:
The job requires a president who not only understands the changes needed to move the country forward but also possesses the discipline and skill to navigate the reality of the resistant Washington power structure to get things done.The only thing that Hillary is disciplined in is in attacking political opponents. She isn't a centrist, meaning that she'd gridlock Washington like no other politician in recent history. I'd further suggest that Hillary hasn't displayed any skills on the art of compromise.
That candidate is New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
I'd also argue that Hillary doesn't understand what's best for America. She'd raise taxes even while the economy weakens.That's a disaster waiting to happen. She hasn't talked about entitlement reform, which must be dealt with in the next 6-8 years. In fact, the only 'reform' that she's interested in is with HillaryCare, which is another disaster waiting to happen.
The bottom line is that Hillary's policies shouldn't be taken seriously.
Posted Sunday, December 16, 2007 2:05 PM
Comment 1 by R-Five at 16-Dec-07 06:44 PM
The candidacies of Clinton, Obama, and Edwards are media fictions. Compare their "qualifications" to Guiliani, Romney, and McCain. Reverse the party situation and the media would be crucifying us for running such obvious lightweights.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-07 01:56 AM
Exactly right.
The Epitome of Arrogance
It didn't take long for me to realize that Pennyslvania House Democrats were extremely arrogant people. All it took was for me to read the first couple paragraphs of Dennis Roddy's and Tracie Mauriello's article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette . Here's all the proof I needed:
In startlingly blunt language, a group of aides, at points working under the direction of then-House Minority Whip Michael Veon, D-Beaver, rated the political work of state employees, sometimes adjusting the amounts of the bonuses based on time they spent in the field or, in one instance, in getting presidential candidate Ralph Nader off the Pennsylvania ballot.That isn't the only proof of their arrogance in this article. Here's another example of their arrogance:
"Mainly, I based my decisions on the number of days people spent in the field," wrote Eric Webb, director of Democratic member services, in one of the e-mails, "but a few people were bumped up for extra efforts, like being a phone bank captain," or "helping with the Spanish phone bank."
An e-mail Mr. Webb wrote to Mr. Manzo in August of 2005 suggests that Mr. Webb made the initial determination about payroll bonuses that year.Then there's this:
In an attached spreadsheet, Mr. Webb lists various employees and their accomplishments. The "rock stars" include more than a dozen House aides, including Mr. Manzo's wife, Rachel, Mr. Veon's top aide, Brett Cott, and Mr. Webb himself. Notations in column G, contain such comments as "went off payroll for 7 days," "helped with oppo research," "team captain, spent a month volunteering," "phone bank leader," and "volunteer coordinator."
Mr. Brubaker had something of the same opinion about his own political work, telling Mr. Manzo at one point that he thought one staff member, Jonathan L. Price, a policy analyst, deserved more money in his year-end bonus.That's what supreme arrogance sounds like. These Democrats are talking this way because they've always gotten away with talking this way. It's like a grizzly or lion in their domain. They don't hide their movements because they're kings of their environments. Democrats think of themselves as kings of their domain (the centers of government).
"26 days in the field along with oppo plus the $$. He's a star compared to me," Mr.
Brubaker said, suggesting his own bonus was excessive.
"Good point on Price," Mr. Manzo replied. "Add another grand. You're staying put though!!!!"
"Will do. On both," Mr. Brubaker responded. "Thanks so much. Very generous."
"Enjoy," Mr. Manzo responded. " Get yourself that new truck!!!"
A perfect example of this malady, at least on the national level, is John Murtha. His arrogance is unsurpassed. Robert Byrd is another example.
At some point, Pennsylvania voters will have to ask this simple question: Am I willing to let these politicians pick my pocket to pay for their campaign 'volunteers'? This is costing taxpayers real money. Isn't it time for them to pay for their campaigns themselves?
Posted Monday, December 17, 2007 2:26 PM
No comments.
Dems Fade Again; Bush Gains Another Victory
Senate Democrats reached a 'compromise' today with the White House, giving the White House everything it wants with regards to a new FISA bill. According to this article , Senate Democrats have agreed to giving telecommunications companies immunity for assisting the Bush administration's NSA intercept program:
The Senate voted by a margin of 76 to 10 to limit debate on a new wiretapping bill Monday, all but ensuring that the Senate will approve amnesty for telecoms that helped the government spy on Americans without court orders and greatly expand the government's ability to spy using American telecom facilities and communication services.This is a tremendous victory for the Bush administration. It puts House Democrats in the unenviable position of either arguing with their Senate colleagues or going along with President Bush's wishes for FISA reform. I suspected that the Nutroots would be upset with Reid's decision so I checked out Kos. Here's what I found :
Today I watch the news, awaiting the inevitable conclusion of the battle over telecom immunity. Dodd and Feingold have tried to head this off, but with one decision on Friday of last week, Reid sealed our fates. Simply put, he sold us out and I feel really personally betrayed by it.One commenter is even calling for Feingold to be the next majority leader:
I'll still give him the benefit of the doubt to an extent. I believe Senator Reid thinks this is for the greater good. I'm sure he thinks that getting other desired reforms for FISA voted in is worth this sacrifice. He is, in a word, wrong. Giving the telecom companies this kind of protection sets the precedent for the future that breaking the law and playing ball with an abusive executive is in their benefit. Why worry about the legal consequences if it gets you a fat contract and your lobbying dollars will save you in the long run?
I'm disgusted. Totally disgusted.
Senator Reid, you have betrayed all of us and I feel just a bit embarrassed for having thought so much of you back then. I'm definitely glad I did it in spite of you, but now when I talk about why I joined the organization I'll have to defend myself. I'll have to sit there and explain why I thought it would be so good to see you speak when you've since done so much damage to our nation. I'll just plead youthful naivety and work to remove you from your position of power.
I was heartbroken when he cancelled his Presidential bid. But given his reasoning, I have to forgive him. He reminds me of what intergity in politics is all about. He would make a great majority leader.The Agenda Media has called President Bush a lame duck president since just after his 2005 inauguration. Still, he keeps winning legislative victories such as this one. These aren't tiny, symbolic victories, either. Reforming FISA is one of the biggest victories of his two-term administration.
Here's the key portion of the article:
The bill under debate is the Senate Intelligence version, which grants immunity to telecoms and wide spying powers to the Administration. A competing bill from the Senate Judiciary omitted immunity and included more oversight over new spying powers.Reid didn't have much choice in choosing the Intelligence Committee's bill. The majority of Americans will grant the government power to protect them. This legislation is proof of that. They don't like the legislative branch's restrictions, though that doesn't mean that they don't want oversight conducted.
Though Majority Leader Reid said he opposed immunity, he chose to override a hold on the Senate Intelligence bill and to virtually guarantee its success by choosing it over the Judiciary bill as the base bill.
I love seeing President Bush gain an important national security victory but it's doubly sweet seeing Democrats split and discouraged, too. That's what happens when they pay too much attention to the MoveOn.org/Daily Kos crowd.
UPDATE: Chris Dodd's tactics have temporarily stalled a vote on the FISA bill. It won't stop the bill from passing but it will earn him points with the Nutroots.
All throughout the day, Judiciary Democrats such as Dodd, Edward Kennedy, and Russ Feingold took aim at the bill, even as Reid professed his hope that the Senate would pass the FISA bill today, in advance of its holiday adjournment. Dodd, a margin-of-error presidential candidate, vowed to filibuster the FISA bill on the floor if it granted large telecom companies such as Verizon and AT&T immunity from civil lawsuits for allegedly cooperating with the government. The Intel Committee bill did just that.Dodd, Kennedy and Feingold have temporarily stopped the Bush freight train but they'll be roadkill shortly into the new year. If they persist in fighting this bill, they'll be cast as politicians who care more about letting lawyers file lawsuits against AT & T and Verizon for helping the NSA prevent terrorist attacks. I hope that they're ready for the beating that they're about to get.
This is yet another reason why Democrats shouldn't be taken seriously in terms of national security.
In a statement this evening, Dodd claimed victory:
"Today we have scored a victory for American civil liberties and sent a message to President Bush that we will not tolerate his abuse of power and veil of secrecy. The president should not be above the rule of law, nor should the telecom companies who supported his quest to spy on American citizens. I thank all my colleagues who joined me in fighting and winning a stay in the rush to grant retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have violated the privacy rights of millions of Americans.I don't agree with Sen. Rockefeller often but he's exactly right that this is one of the most important bills Congress has dealt with in quite some time. Sen. Dodd is grandstanding, nothing more. If he doesn't knows that these telecommunications companies did the right thing, then he isn't qualified to be county commissioner, much less a senator. I suspect that he knows but he'd rather pander to the Nutroots and the ACLU than protect America.
However, the Democratic chair of the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (W.Va.), was not happy. It was his bill that didn't make it off the floor Monday. In a statement after Reid pulled the bill, Rockefeller said:
"I'm disappointed legislation to modernize and improve FISA will now have to wait
until January. As I've said many times, it is one of the most important bills before Congress, and one that should not be rushed in the final hours before Protect America Act expires.
"Today's strong 76-10 vote to cut off debate is a clear sign that the majority of Congress is ready and willing to pass this critical legislation.
Originally posted Monday, December 17, 2007, revised 18-Dec 3:10 AM
No comments.
