January 24, 2007
Jan 24 03:58 The Democratic Response Jan 24 15:47 SOTU Analysis Jan 24 20:38 Dems Running Out of Ideas Jan 24 23:32 ATTENTION NFL DRAFT JUNKIES!!!
Prior Years: 2006
The Democratic Response
Tonight's response to the President's State of the Union Address was given by newly elected Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia. Here's some of the disingenuous things he said:
We are looking for affirmative solutions that will strengthen our nation by freeing us from our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring a wave of entrepreneurial growth in the form of alternate energy programs.Oh really, Sen. Webb? Since when is taking ANWR part of a sane person's plan to make America independent of foreign oil? What will America do in the short term until these alternative energy sources are available at a reasonable price? How does putting our biggest natural gas fields off limits make us less dependent on Hugo Chavez's heating oil? It seems to me that the energy experts have already told us with their investments that these alternatives aren't all they're touted to be.
Also, how will Democratic obstruction of building new refineries help eliminate a 30 year bottleneck in the system? Why should Democrats take an 'alternative energy only' path to energy independence? By the way, will Sen. Webb write the legislation that makes it illegal for William Delahunt and the Kennedy family from making deals with terrorist sympathizing socialists like Hugo Chavez?
The majority of the nation no longer supports the way this war is being fought; nor does the majority of our military. We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism. Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq's cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.The kindest thing I can say about Sen. Webb is that he's a bald-faced liar. How dare he say that the majority of our military doesn't support this war anymore. If the military doesn't support the war, why are soldiers re-enlisting in record numbers? Sen. Webb just lost his entire credibility by that irresponsible statement. He lost his credibility because he put a higher priority on cheap-shotting the President than on telling the American people the truth.
If Sen. Webb wants to negotiate with the Iranians and Syrians, he should say so directly. He shouldn't tapdance around that position by saying that we should "shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy"? Sen. Webb doesn't say how we pursue "a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq" without leaving Iraq in chaos. Does he expect the American people to think that we can leave "in short order" without it resulting in chaos?
As I look at Iraq, I recall the words of former general and soon-to-be President Dwight Eisenhower during the dark days of the Korean War, which had fallen into a bloody stalemate. "When comes the end?" asked the General who had commanded our forces in Europe during World War Two. And as soon as he became President, he brought the Korean War to an end.This is such a phony paragraph because the parallels are nonexistent. President Eisenhower could end the Korean War without worrying about the North Koreans following us home. If President Bush pulled our troops out of Iraq, al Qa'ida would follow us here and kill us.
Tonight we are calling on this President to take similar action, in both areas. If he does, we will join him. If he does not, we will be showing him the way.I pray that President Bush ignores this idiot. I pray that he tells Sen. Webb where to go. I wouldn't accept any Democrat's direction on Iraq other than Sen. Lieberman. Sen. Webb's mind has been closed for so long on this that he couldn't even set his hatred of President Bush aside for even the reception that Presidents have for newly elected senators. Even then, he tried showing up President Bush.
Simply put, Sen. Webb has BDS so bad that it's likely incurable. Sen. Webb isn't qualified to be a senator, much less to give the Democratic response to the SOTU.
Posted Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:59 AM
Comment 1 by MariesTwoCents at 24-Jan-07 05:55 AM
I agree with you on this. I caught that statement about the "Majority Of The Military" also.
How the heck does he know what the Majority of the Military is feeling? Has he talked with the Majority of the Military? I doubt it! Your right why would the Military be signing up and re-enlisting in record numbers if this were true?
I think a correction and possibly an apology to the Military may be in order here.
If the Dems were looking for bi-partisonship, I think they just threw it out the window.
SOTU Analysis
I wasn't able to watch the SOTU but I liked a number of things that I read in the President's speech. Here's the first thing that I really liked:
First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. I ask you to make the same commitment. Together, we can restrain the spending appetite of the federal government, and balance the federal budget.There's no other way to word this than say that it's a shot across the Democrats' bow. He says that we can balance the budget without increasing taxes but it will require spending restraint. I especially liked the part about setting the goal of cutting the annual deficit in half by 2009 and meeting that goal three years ahead of schedule. With tax revenues increasing and nonmilitary discretionary spending flat-lining, there isn't a reason why we can't balance the budget shortly after a new president is sworn in.
Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour, when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate; they are dropped into Committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. You did not vote them into law. I did not sign them into law. Yet they are treated as if they have the force of law. The time has come to end this practice. So let us work together to reform the budget process...expose every earmark to the light of day and to a vote in Congress...and cut the number and cost of earmarks at least in half by the end of this session.I'm all for ending anonymous earmarks but I wish President Bush had vetoed some of the earmark-laden bills, especially the Transportation bill a couple years back. If he'd vetoed that Transportation bill, we wouldn't be dealing with Speaker Pelosi. Oh well. I hope they achieve the President's goal of cutting earmarks in half by his next SOTU Address. Of course, I'd rather they be eliminated altogether but...
A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of citizens across our Nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. And we have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty as well: to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.Thank you, President Bush, for putting the heat on scoundrels like Sens. Leahy, Kennedy and Schumer. They're in the majority but that doesn't mean that they're beyond the spotlight that a president can shine on their cheap political stunts. It's time that this gang of scoundrels paid a price for their ultrapartisanship. I don't kid myself into thinking that they'll get defeated electorally. My wish is that President Bush shines the spotlight on them and makes their party pay a steep political price in 2008.
From the start, America and our allies have protected our people by staying on the offense. The enemy knows that the days of comfortable sanctuary, easy movement, steady financing, and free flowing communications are long over. For the terrorists, life since Nine-Eleven has never been the same.TRANSLATION: I formulated a plan that's protected us from additional terrorist attacks. My plan has brought distress and death to the terrorists' pre-9/11 way of life.
Our success in this war is often measured by the things that did not happen. We cannot know the full extent of the attacks that we and our allies have prevented, but here is some of what we do know: We stopped an al Qaeda plot to fly a hijacked airplane into the tallest building on the West Coast. We broke up a Southeast Asian terrorist cell grooming operatives for attacks inside the United States. We uncovered an al Qaeda cell developing anthrax to be used in attacks against America. And just last August, British authorities uncovered a plot to blow up passenger planes bound for America over the Atlantic Ocean. For each life saved, we owe a debt of gratitude to the brave public servants who devote their lives to finding the terrorists and stopping them.The list of our successes hasn't gotten the publicity that it deserves but the list is lengthy. The wisdom of President Bush's plan is beyond question, even though the radical left still attempts to debate its wisdom. This doesn't radically alter the debate. It merely serves as another 'tool' in exposing the Left's foolishness.
Every success against the terrorists is a reminder of the shoreless ambitions of this enemy. The evil that inspired and rejoiced in Nine-Eleven is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a Nation at war.I said earlier that I didn't watch the speech but I'd be surprised if Democrats didn't frown when President Bush said that America is a nation at war. Fools like Speaker Pelosi, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama act as though America isn't at war. They've told us that we should move out of Iraq as though there aren't serious national and homeland security repercussions to quitting in Iraq when there are clearly troubles that would arise from their quitting.
In the minds of the terrorists, this war began well before September 11th, and will not end until their radical vision is fulfilled. And these past five years have given us a much clearer view of the nature of this enemy. Al Qaeda and its followers are Sunni extremists, possessed by hatred and commanded by a harsh and narrow ideology. Take almost any principle of civilization, and their goal is the opposite. They preach with threats...instruct with bullets and bombs...and promise paradise for the murder of the innocent.TRANSLATION: Democrats can deny it all they want but ignored the threat Islamic jihadists posed throughout the 1990's. Now President Bush is confronting the jihadists militarily and with the use of intelligence programs. President Bush is taking this responsibility seriously because he refuses to repeat the mistakes of the Bill's and Hillary's administration.
This is where matters stand tonight, in the here and now. I have spoken with many of you in person. I respect you and the arguments you have made. We went into this largely united, in our assumptions, and in our convictions. And whatever you voted for, you did not vote for failure. Our country is pursuing a new strategy in Iraq, and I ask you to give it a chance to work. And I ask you to support our troops in the field, and those on their way.Democrats didn't vote for failure then but they're invested in failure now because their hopes in 2008 are contingent on military failure in Iraq. If Iraq stabilizes, then Democratic presidential hopes will be dashed.
UPDATE: The Senate Foreign Relations Committee just approved a non-binding resolution by a 12-9 margin. It now goes to the full Senate to be debated.
Little Chuckie Hagel, (RINO-NE), voted for the resolution. Shame on him for that. I'm told he didn't just vote against the President's plan; he went off on another diatribe against Richard Lugar, (R-IN), who said that proposing this resolution wouldn't be helpful to our allies and our troops.
If there are any GOP activists from Nebraska reading this, I beg of you to find a viable candidate to defeat this idiot in next year's primary so we can have a genuine GOP senator representing Nebraska. We can't afford to have idiots like this demoralizing our troops when they're fighting the greatest war of our generation.
People who've read this blog know what I think about John Murtha. I have little regard for Murtha; I think less highly of Sen. Hagel. Murtha raised his ruckus because he wanted political power. Hagel is making his stink because he's been critical of President Bush from Day One. Simply put, Hagel is a petty little man who isn't qualified to be an elected official in any level of government.
Posted Wednesday, January 24, 2007 3:49 PM
No comments.
Dems Running Out of Ideas
That's Jonathan Gurwitz's opinion in his latest column. I wholeheartedly agree.
Give Democrats credit. They campaigned on a legislative agenda. They won on it. They delivered it in fewer than 100 hours - according to Nancy Pelosi's clock.If it's true that Democrats have already finished with their highest priority agenda items, the this will be a short-lived House majority for them. I know that they've got other items on the agenda but they aren't popular at all.
Lesson to Republicans: It really is that easy. Once upon a time, the GOP leadership understood that lesson. Forty years of wandering in the minority desert led Republicans to the political promised land in the 1990s. Perhaps a shorter sojourn will suffice this time.
But having completed their legislative imperatives before the month of January is out, Democrats now face an important question: What next? Not to diminish the importance of, say, halving the interest rate on student loans, but there are a few significant issues the Democrat-controlled Congress hasn't begun to touch.
Rep. Rahm Emanuel, (D-IL), who served as chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee last year, was the principal architect of his party's stunning victory in November. He is today chairman of the House Democratic Caucus.
In a recent interview with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, Emanuel spelled out the Democratic leadership's legislative agenda for the rest of 2007: energy independence and better health care for children.
A couple of the things that I'm betting are on their agenda are ending profiling as we know it and ending global warming.
We learned that ending religious profiling was on their agenda when John Conyers ' coincidentally' produced a resolution the day after the Flying Imam Fiasco broke just before Thanksgiving. Here's what we found out from Investors Business Daily:
Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.Granting Muslims "special civil-rights protections in this post-9/11 world won't fly. In fact, I'd bet that the Senate would think of that as so radioactive that they wouldn't even grant it a committee hearing. It's difficult to imagine a legitimate reason why a newly elected majority would squander their political capital on such a loser of an issue. Then again, we're talking about John Conyers and Nancy Pelosi, who don't have a reputation of having a high political IQ.
The truth is that Jonathan has highlighted something that was apparent last fall. Democrats didn't run on a true agenda. Their campaign was based on "We're not like Republicans", which is true. As bad as Republicans were this past couple of years, the newly-minted Democrat majority is far worse.
Another thing that will unfortunately be on their agenda is undercutting the President and demoralizing the troops. Ms. Pelosi has already announced that they won't cut funding for the troops but they'll certainly berate the President no matter what he does. Here's a brief exchange on Iraq policy from GMA:
Sawyer: But short of that, questions posed, resolutions passed, short of that, are you acquiescing in the surge if the pocketbook is the only other control mechanism?The truth is that Pelosi is treading water because she knows that Democrats don't have a coherent policy on Iraq. They can't have a coherent policy because the Pacifist Left of their party is so militant that they won't let Democrats develop a coherent strategy for winning any war.
Pelosi: The president knows that because the troops are in harm's way, that we won't cut off the resources. That's why he's moving so quickly to put them in harm's way, but we will hold the president accountable. He has to answer for his war.
Posted Wednesday, January 24, 2007 8:42 PM
No comments.
ATTENTION NFL DRAFT JUNKIES!!!
If you're like me, this is a great time of the year to be an NFL football junkie. We just finished determining who will play in the Super Bowl, with Indianapolis & the Patriots putting on a great show, possibly the best AFC championship game in the past decade. It's also the time when the other 30 teams are doing the preliminary work on their drafting homework.
If you're like me, you crave every morsel of information from the Senior Bowl, the NFL Combine, the major college Pro Days & the individual workouts. If you want a great source of that type of information, I've got good news. Follow this link for Scott Wright's reports from the Senior Bowl in Mobile, AL. This link will take you to Scott's blogging of events from the Senior Bowl this week. Trust me when I say that you'll want to read all of Scott's blogging from Mobile.
You'll also want to bookmark Scott's website NFLDraftCountdown.com and his draft blog. Scott doesn't have the name recognition that that ESPN guy with the hair that never moves has but Scott's got one of the best draft websites in the business.
Make sure you register for Scott's Forums, too. Follow this link to register to comment on the various forums. You won't regret it.
Posted Wednesday, January 24, 2007 11:32 PM
Comment 1 by Sean @ MyMockDraft.com at 25-Jan-07 10:22 AM
Excellent sites, for sure. If you would like to do your own mock draft, and post it up for the world to see, be sure to check out MyMockDraft.
You can easily create your own mock draft using a simple online tool. Heck, it even suggests picks for you :)
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 25-Jan-07 08:13 PM
Sean, Thanks for pointing that out. I'll definitely check your site out.
Comment 3 by Robert Bryant at 25-Jan-07 11:18 PM
Nice information. What do you think of my NFL Draft Site-Blog?
http://nfl-draft-site.blogspot.com/
Rob
Comment 4 by Robert N. Bryant at 02-Feb-07 06:52 PM
I agree, I am a big fan of Scott Wright. I think he and Mel Kiper are the two most talented NFL Draft Scouts. I am trying to get an interview with Scott Wright, but he is hard to get a hold of.
Robert Bryant
The NFL Draft Site
http://nfl-draft-site.blogspot.com/
