February 6-8, 2011
Feb 06 00:38 Quintessential Reagan Feb 06 03:16 Ronaldus Magnus Tribute, Part II Feb 06 12:24 DFL Getting Nuttier By the Week Feb 06 13:03 Tear Down This Wall; Reagan's Finest Moment? Feb 07 10:59 All Promises, No Funding Feb 07 16:54 It's Sinking In!!! Feb 07 21:03 DLC's Collapse: The Death of Centrist Democrats? Feb 08 02:01 SEIU, HCAN Part of the Hateful Left Feb 08 05:10 They're Practically Identical
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Quintessential Reagan
For the last half hour, I've been soaking in Ronald Reagan's final address from the Oval Office . It isn't the first time I've read the speech. In fact, I recall watching it on TV as he delivered it live. At times, it feels like that was just yesterday.
It had the marks of all of Reagan's speeches: abundant profundity, profuse optimism and the belief that We The People, Reagan's Army, had won the victories. That's quintessential Ronald Reagan. In his mind, he didn't lead us to great things. He just did enough to help us do what needed to get done.
On that final point, I will profoundly disagree. It's the only time I've ever profoundly disagreed with Dutch. President Reagan said that it's essential to teach people what America is all about so let's dive in together into how to do that, as captured in his speech:
If we forget what we did, we won't know who we are. I'm warning of an eradication of the American memory that could result, ultimately, in an erosion of the American spirit. Let's start with some basics: more attention to American history and a greater emphasis on civic ritual. And let me offer lesson No. 1 about America: All great change in America begins at the dinner table. So, tomorrow night in the kitchen I hope the talking begins. And children, if your parents haven't been teaching you what it means to be an American, let 'em know and nail 'em on it. That would be a very American thing to do.
If we've learned anything the past 2 years, it's that we must hold true to America's first principles, that liberty will always produce great results, that it's right to not "be afraid to see what you see."
There will never be another Dutch but there's no reason to think that there aren't countless opportunities for the next great American revival. It's part of our DNA. Most importantly, let's remember President Reagan's great admonition: that "all great change in America begins at the dinner table."
This isn't said with any bitterness but, frankly, it doesn't take a village. It takes a dinner table with everyone engaged in vital conversations about our history, our freedoms, our accomplishments.
This is one of my favorite Reagan profundities:
Well, back in 1980, when I was running for president, it was all so different. Some pundits said our programs would result in catastrophe. Our views on foreign affairs would cause war. Our plans for the economy would cause inflation to soar and bring about economic collapse. I even remember one highly respected economist saying, back in 1982, that "the engines of economic growth have shut down here, and they're likely to stay that way for years to come." Well, he and the other opinion leaders were wrong. The fact is, what they called "radical" was really "right." What they called "dangerous" was just "desperately needed."
And in all of that time I won a nickname, "The Great Communicator." But I never thought it was my style or the words I used that made a difference: It was the content. I wasn't a great communicator, but I communicated great things, and they didn't spring full bloom from my brow, they came from the heart of a great nation , from our experience, our wisdom, and our belief in principles that have guided us for two centuries. They called it the Reagan revolution. Well, I'll accept that, but for me it always seemed more like the great rediscovery, a rediscovery of our values and our common sense.
Great leaders always share the accomplishments with their troops. This was certainly true of Reagan. Of all the presidents I've had the opportunity to vote for, Reagan stands alone in being a man who was both cheerleader and policymaker, Great Communicator and moral compass.
President Reagan understood that it didn't take a great communicator to get America back on her feet. President Reagan understood that it just took a reminder to We The People that we didn't need government to achieve great things. We just needed periodic inspiration from our leader that we, as individuals, could accomplish things beyond our wildest dreams.
Shortly after Reagan's administration, George Will wrote that President Reagan was like the uncle who knew just the right time to give us a pat on the back that would inspire us to do more great things. Will's words are as true today as they were when he wrote them.
The great thing about President Reagan is that he knew where America's greatness came from:
Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: "We the people." "We the people" tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us. "We the people" are the driver, the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which "We the people" tell the government what it is allowed to do. "We the people" are free. This belief has been the underlying basis for everything I've tried to do these past eight years.
Just like his predecessors, President Reagan's administration wasn't perfect. Still, great things were accomplished that still are mind-boggling, even for someone who lived through them. As usual, President Reagan summed it up best:
The lesson of all this was, of course, that because we're a great nation, our challenges seem complex. It will always be this way. But as long as we remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours. And something else we learned: Once you begin a great movement, there's no telling where it will end. We meant to change a nation, and instead, we changed a world.
I believe that we're at the start of the latest generation of the Reagan Revolution. If we "remember our first principles and believe in ourselves, the future will always be ours." We're certainly getting back in touch with our first principles. We're certainly starting to believe in ourselves.
Most importantly, we're understanding that the things, politicians really, in our way can be swept away quite swiftly. Last November provided proof positive of that. Long before last November's revolution, we learned that internalizing the Constitution's principles and standing for limited government would put us on the path of restoring American exceptionalism.
Finally, let's live worthy of living up to President Reagan's dream of that shining city on a hill:
I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity , and if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it and see it still.
What's great about Reagan's shining city on a hill is that it wasn't just a vision. It's something that, for 8 years, President Reagan's leadership and wisdom, combined with Reagan's Regiments, made a reality.
"Not bad, not bad at all."
Posted Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:38 AM
No comments.
Ronaldus Magnus Tribute, Part II
Ronald Reagan's wisdom shined through anytime he spoke. One of my favorite Reagan speeches was his State of the Union Address on Jan. 25, 1984. The setting is that America is emerging from a long recession ostensibly started by Jimmy Carter's disastrous economic policies.
Early in the speech, Reagan reminded people of the potential perils ahead, followed by his solution:
The problems we're overcoming are not the heritage of one person, party, or even one generation. It's just the tendency of government to grow, for practices and programs to become the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this Earth. [Laughter] And there's always that well-intentioned chorus of voices saying, "With a little more power and a little more money, we could do so much for the people." For a time we forgot the American dream isn't one of making government bigger; it's keeping faith with the mighty spirit of free people under God.
This isn't one of Reagan's great lines that will forever be etched in our nation's memories. Instead, it's just another profundity-filled Reagan saying. His adversaries, Speaker Tip O'Neill and Sen. Ted Kennedy undoubtedly among them, were asking for more money to 'help the people'.
Rather than giving in, Reagan reminded them where America's prosperity originated. In President Reagan's mind, it started with "We The People." In his mind, that's the only place it could start.
The thing conservatives should learn from Reagan is that the present is always a great time to keep teaching about America's greatness. He certainly took this opportunity to do just that:
On the international scene, we had an uncomfortable feeling that we'd lost the respect of friend and foe. Some questioned whether we had the will to defend peace and freedom. But America is too great for small dreams. There was a hunger in the land for a spiritual revival; if you will, a crusade for renewal. The American people said: Let us look to the future with confidence, both at home and abroad. Let us give freedom a chance.
Americans were ready to make a new beginning, and together we have done it. We're confronting our problems one by one. Hope is alive tonight for millions of young families and senior citizens set free from unfair tax increases and crushing inflation. Inflation has been beaten down from 12.4 to 3.2 percent, and that's a great victory for all the people. The prime rate has been cut almost in half, and we must work together to bring it down even more.
As I said earlier, for President Reagan, the starting point for prosperity was the expansion of liberty and letting capitalism work its magic.
In Reagan's mind, though, capitalism wasn't magic. It was betting on human nature, which was, to President Reagan's thinking, the closest thing to a sure bet as existed. Still, liberty was always near at heart:
A society bursting with opportunities, reaching for its future with confidence, sustained by faith, fair play, and a conviction that good and courageous people will flourish when they're free; these are the secrets of a strong and prosperous America at peace with itself and the world.
When governments take things over 'for the greater good', it's almost automatically going to turn out bad. When governments let people accomplish things, individuals' confidence grows and societies flourish.
At the heart of the Reagan Revolution was Reagan's trust in individuals' desire to prosper. The records clearly show that, of all the things he got right, President Reagan got that one right most frequently.
Thanks, Mr. President.
Posted Sunday, February 6, 2011 3:16 AM
No comments.
DFL Getting Nuttier By the Week
I just watched Ember Reichgott-Junge and Matt Entenza make asses of themselves on @Issue With Tom Hauser. It's a not-rare-enough talent they both seem to possess.
Tom Hauser played a clip from the SNL spoof on Michele Bachmann, then asked Reichgott-Junge if it was good publicity. Reichgott-Junge responded by saying that "Michele is a celebrity, not a politician." Frankly, the comment reaked of jealousy and incompetence. It's also likely to become the DFL's newest attack on her.
The reality is that the DFL doesn't have anyone that can seriously compete with Michele. That includes Tarryl Clark. Tarryl's ONLY HOPE is that Michele gets removed through redistricting. Even then, her chances aren't that great.
Next up was Matt Entenza, the former DFL gubernatorial candidate who finished a distant third behind Dayton and then-Speaker Kelliher, saying that there's lots of proof that big bonding bills create lots of jobs. Then he didn't offer any reports that showed proof that big bonding bills create lots of jobs.
I'd love asking Entenza how the government borrowing money and taking it out of play for the private sector creates sustainable jobs. The answer is that he doesn't have a credible answer. The truth is that government harms the economy by annually borrowing money and heaping debt onto the next generation for pork projects.
If Minnesota wants a stop-gap economy that patches things together a year at a time, then they should vote DFL. They don't have a true economic plan.
If, however, Minnesotans prefer an entrepreneur-based economy that sustains itself, then the only option is voting GOP. Apparently, Minnesotans figured that out this past November.
Entenza and Reichgott-Junge need to find a new line of work. Frankly, they keep getting nuttier, and less credible, by the week. They need to stop spewing the DFL's talking points because, frankly, the DFL is discredited at this point. That's why they lost one-third of their Senate seats and one-fourth of their House seats in losing both their majorities.
The DFL's economic model is based on heaping debt onto future generations for pork projects that help their political allies. The other thing that they're known for is picking winners and losers. Green jobs are the perfect example.
They're willing to give entrepreneurs an unending supply of incentives for starting up those types of businesses but they rail against tax cuts for other businesses. That's the definition of picking winners and losers.
Posted Sunday, February 6, 2011 12:24 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 06-Feb-11 06:05 PM
I somehow fell out of watching Almanac and At Issue the past few months. It's just too much of suffering of fools like Ember and Matt, too much coverage of outright liars like Spano and Melendez.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Feb-11 07:03 PM
Like I said, I watch so you don't have to.
Comment 2 by Steve at 07-Feb-11 09:10 AM
Instead of saying you would like to ask Matt Entenza and then answering for him, which I assure you would not be his answer, why don't you ask him and publish it?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Feb-11 11:38 AM
I'm sure Mr. Entenza wouldn't give that answer but it's well-established economic fact that whenever gov't borrows large amounts of money, it takes money out of the private sector. I won't waste my time asking him a question which he's certain to obfuscate on.
Tear Down This Wall; Reagan's Finest Moment?
If any speech epitomizes President Reagan, it's the stunning speech he delivered at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. The ninnies at the State Department were aghast that he didn't listen to their advice. Reagan fanatics know this passage by heart but it's worth repeating so here goes:
In the 1950's, Khrushchev predicted: "We will bury you." But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind-too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself. After these four decades, then, there stands before the entire world one great and inescapable conclusion: Freedom leads to prosperity. Freedom replaces the ancient hatreds among the nations with comity and peace. Freedom is the victor.
And now the Soviets themselves may, in a limited way, be coming to understand the importance of freedom. We hear much from Moscow about a new policy of reform and openness. Some political prisoners have been released. Certain foreign news broadcasts are no longer being jammed. Some economic enterprises have been permitted to operate with greater freedom from state control. Are these the beginnings of profound changes in the Soviet state? Or are they token gestures, intended to raise false hopes in the West, or to strengthen the Soviet system without changing it? We welcome change and openness; for we believe that freedom and security go together, that the advance of human liberty can only strengthen the cause of world peace.
There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
This speech was about so much more than tearing down the wall seperating what once were East and West Berlin. It was a teaching moment for President Reagan and he siezed the opportunity and made the most of it.
President Reagan's quoting of Kruschev was intentional and instructional. Kruschev thought Soviet-style discipline would help them rule the world. He really thought that the USSR would "bury" the U.S.
Reagan knew what Kruschev couldn't admit: that free societies where people could do whatever they wanted will always crush societies that were directed from on high.
When Reagan took office on Jan. 20, 1981, he was likely the only person in the world who thought that he could collapse the Soviet empire. In most people's minds, peaceful co-existence seemed like the best we could hope for. These bold words spoke to what President Reagan believed:
But in the West today, we see a free world that has achieved a level of prosperity and well-being unprecedented in all human history. In the Communist world, we see failure, technological backwardness, declining standards of health, even want of the most basic kind-too little food. Even today, the Soviet Union still cannot feed itself.
In President Reagan's mind, the Soviet Union was vastly inferior to America's system. In President Reagan's thinking, it was a matter of time before the West would prove that conclusively. It wasn't wishful thinking on his behalf. It was inevitable.
President Reagan's critics sometimes called him the "Amiable Dunce." In reality, Reagan was a visionary who'd thought things through to such an extent that people didn't realize he was playing chess at a high level while his critics played tiddly winks.
Because his policies, especially those that he embraced on the world stage, kept turning up great, people trusted him more with each passing year. That's the difference between Reagan and all other world leaders since his time. He was right because he'd thought things through.
That's what made Reagan special.
When President Reagan insisted that Gorbachev "tear down this wall", the State Department gasped and the rest of the world knew it was just a matter of time until his command became reality.
Reagan's "Tear Down This Wall" speech was just the culmination of a vision Reagan had held for decades.
That's why the American people so trusted him.
Posted Sunday, February 6, 2011 1:03 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Feb-11 09:17 PM
Gary:
What makes Reagan so special and why we're hungry for leadership is that he was told that it would be wrong to do it, but did it anyway. We hunger for that type leadership where we want leaders to do what is right not what they're told is right.
Obama is the exact opposite. He does what is wrong and doesn't listen to people tell him what is right.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
All Promises, No Funding
All campaign long, then-Sen. Dayton promised that he'd increase education funding each year "without exception, without excuses." Back then, he was touting his tax-the-rich scheme, saying it would generate $4,000,000,000 in new revenue. When the Department of Revenue said that his tax-the-rich scheme would 'only' generate $1,900,000,000, there suddenly were tons of excuses from Candidate Dayton on why they wouldn't be able to increase education funding right away.
The lobbyists must've gotten to Gov. Dayton because he's on the verge of increasing education funding without supplying the funding for the spending increase:
While Republican legislators were working on plans to slash education funding and freeze teachers' wages , Governor Dayton was working on a plan to improve education in Minnesota. Dayton's plan features a renewed focus on narrowing the achievement gap, more support for early childhood education, better funding for our schools, and fewer but smarter tests.
Actually, Gov. Dayton announced he wants to increase education spending. He didn't say how he'd pay for it or what services would be chopped to pay for the education spending increases.
Thus far, Gov. Dayton is scoring style points but he isn't providing anything substantive in terms of solutions to anything. Gov. Dayton won't be judged on his style points except in the Twin Cities media. He'll be judged by his reckless spending, his smoke and mirrors permitting reform and his attempt to kill small businesses with a 40 percent tax increase (from 7.85% to 11%.)
Gov. Dayton's PR stunts won't win him Minnesotans' admiration because he's on the wrong side of the issues. It isn't that people are opposed to spending money on education. It's that they're opposed to increasing education funding without having a way to pay for that increase.
Last November, Minnesotans rejected the DFL's policies by giving the GOP majorities in both houses of the state legislature. They resoundingly voted against major tax increases and outdated policies. This line from Gov. Dayton's press release tells us what his priorities are:
Education was key to our State's past prosperity, and it will be key to our future prosperity.
Gov. Dayton, Stop looking to the past. If you're serious about building a 21st Century economy, it'll take more than a good education system. It'll require a streamlined permitting process. It'll require a reformed litigation system. It'll require lower tax rates for everyone.
Stopping short of those things will shortchange Minnesota's next generation.
It's time that the DFL understood that job creation isn't just about education, though that's an important part. It's time they understood that it's also about having competitive tax rates and a lower regulatory burden.
Thus far, Gov. Dayton and the DFL haven't figured out the 'balanced approach' to creating jobs. They've only argued for increased education funding without having a way to pay for their 'commitment'. Shame on them.
Thus far, Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's education is alot of policy changes without a way to pay for it. In short, it's a PR stunt combined with a sop to their EdMinn GOTV supporters.
It's time the DFL figured it out that it isn't just about education.
Posted Monday, February 7, 2011 10:59 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Feb-11 04:19 PM
Gary:
Maybe some DFL person can answer this question. We spend $10,000 per student and the desired class size is 16. If a teacher makes $60,000 what are we doing with the other $100,000?
It seems like we easily don't need any new funding. Just spend the other $100,000 better!
When is the DFL going to get that message?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 07-Feb-11 06:40 PM
That's right. Dayton's right, too, in that we need to improve education. There is absolutely NOTHING that increasing funding can do to improve K-12 education. If you want to improve education, you should make a plan which improves education, then measure the improvement. Rather than give out more funding with no strings, threaten to take away funding if schools fail to improve. FAR more effective.
It's Sinking In!!!
The time I've spent, along with the time Rep. King Banaian and other conservative activists and legislators have spent, teaching about the diminutive returns gained from bonding (debt?) bills is paying off. The proof I have is this op-ed in Mndaily:
In his first month in office, President Barack Obama passed a $787 billion stimulus package. Predictably, just as President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal failed to rescue the nation from the Great Depression, Obama's stimulus has thus far failed to rescue us from the "Great Recession."
Now, after a record of failure of these Keynesian proposals, Gov. Mark Dayton is proposing the same big government on the state level, with his $1 billion bonding bill.
But "Dayton's Stimulus" will not produce the results he seeks. The costs are bloated and not market-oriented, and the blue-collar labor market is a fraction of the size it was in the 1930s.
The city of Minneapolis illustrates the bloated costs of Obama's stimulus perfectly.
Minneapolis received about $32 million in stimulus funds and Minnesota Public Radio reported the result of this spending was 206 new full-time jobs. The average of that is about $155,339 per job created.
The average salary of a city worker in Minneapolis is $45,024 annually.
That $110,315 per employee discrepancy demonstrates nothing more than a waste of taxpayer money.
To be fair, Keynesian economics isn't getting a fair rap here. Keynesian economics believes in paying the money back that it used to jumpstart the economy.
Still, the writer is right. Gov. Dayton's debt bill is filled with pork. This article highlights some of the pork items:
The Dayton proposal includes $28 million to expand the Mayo Civic Center in Rochester. Former GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty vetoed $28 million from last year's bonding bill for the $75 million civic center project.
In all, Pawlenty vetoed $320 million in projects from the $1 billion bonding bill passed last year by the Legislature, then controlled by the DFL.
Rochester officials say that the Mayo Civic Center project would create 400 construction jobs and 800 permanent jobs, and that it is ready to go after receiving $3.5 million in design money from the state two years ago.
Also on Dayton's list is $8 million to renovate the 21-year-old Target Center in downtown Minneapolis, and $20 million toward a new $45 million St. Paul Saints ballpark in St. Paul's Lowertown neighborhood.
We're piling on $50+ million of debt onto future generations for this crap??? This isn't an intelligent use of the public's money.
I'd further question whether the Mayo Civic Center project would create 800 permanent jobs. That seems awfully high. I'd love hearing these "Rochester officials" explained how they reached those figures. Was it by throwing darts at a dartboard? Did they get that figure from a public employees union? Is it solid math? I'm betting that it isn't solid math.
Gov. Dayton says he's learned alot from former Gov. Perpich. That isn't likely because Gov. Perpich heeded the 3 percent rule put in place by Gov. Quie. Here are the guidelines of the 3 percent rule:
Guidelines
1. The general fund appropriation for debt service should not exceed 3 percent of non-dedicated general fund revenues in a biennium.
2. Total general obligation long-term debt should not exceed 2.5 percent of state personal income.
3. Total state general obligation debt, moral obligation debt, state bond guarantees, equipment capital leases, and real estate leases should not exceed 5 percent of total state personal income.
4. Total revenue and general obligation debt of state agencies, public corporations, and the University of Minnesota should not exceed 3.5 percent of total personal income.
5. Forty percent of general obligation debt must be due within five years and 70 percent within 10 years.
If Gov. Dayton's bonding bill would pass, which it won't, Minnesota's debt obligation would exceed 3 percent. (I don't have the exact rate but it was nudging up against 3 percent with Gov. Pawlenty's last bonding bill. This would easily put it over.)
If there was anything I'd want Gov. Dayton to learn from Gov. Perpich, it's that he shouldn't overextend Minnesota's credit card. From this point forward, I won't call Dayton's bill a bonding bill. Instead, I'll refer to it as either Dayton's Debt Bill, Dayton's Stimulus or as Dayton's Pork Bill. Without question, those titles are accurate.
The questions are more accurate than Dayton's Pork Bill would be productive. We don't need more pork. Instead, what's needed is a genuine 21st Century economy. Dayton's Pork Bill won't get us there.
Posted Monday, February 7, 2011 4:54 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Feb-11 06:28 PM
The thing we have to get across to people is that government spending, even on worthwhile things (which the vast majority are not), creates ZERO construction jobs. It creates work for existing construction workers, but all it does is put them on this project instead of some private construction project that would have more value. Just moving this labor around to where it does less good doesn't help the economy and to some degree hurts it. It's NOT a "jobs bill," period.
Comment 2 by Jane L Wegener at 08-Feb-11 04:53 AM
WOW well said! If only Dayton would get this message. Even though its been proven that the Obama stimulus did NOT create any jobs except in the government, Dayton still thinks that spending by the government creates jobs. The definition of insanity comes to mind.
DLC's Collapse: The Death of Centrist Democrats?
During the peak of Bill Clinton's administration, the Democratic Leadership Council, with politicians like Joe Lieberman, John Breaux and Evan Bayh on board, played a significant policy role within the Democratic Party. This article , unfortunately, tells of the end of that once-influential wing of the Democratic Party:
The Democratic Leadership Council, the iconic centrist organization of the Clinton years, is out of money and could close its doors as soon as next week, a person familiar with the plans said Monday.
The DLC, a network of Democratic elected officials and policy intellectuals had long been fading from its mid-'90s political relevance, tarred by the left as a symbol of "triangulation" at a moment when there's little appetite for intra-party warfare on the center-right. The group tried, but has failed, to remake itself in the summer of 2009, when its founder, Al From, stepped down as president. Its new leader, former Clinton aide Bruce Reed, sought to remake the group as a think tank, and the DLC split from its associated think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute.
This just makes official what's been known since August, 2006 :
But regardless of all that, the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: there's no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonight's result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. It's really much more than just a single primary in a single state; it's a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, there's one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:
I am no longer a Democrat.
That's the night Brendan Loy's announcement told the world that Pelosi's progressives had taken over the Democratic Party. It's when people like Markos Moulitsas and Arianna Huffington thought that they'd taken over the Democratic Party and that there'd be nothing but smooth sailing ahead.
Those days are long gone, with November's elections reproving the fact that we're still a center-right nation.
During the health care takeover debate, a number of votes proved that there's no such thing as a centrist Democrat anymore. When supposed centrists like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson voted the same way that extremists like Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich voted, that's proof positive that centrism is dead within the Democratic Party.
The DLC is already showing signs of disrepair. Its website currently leads a Harold Ford op-ed from last November, titled, "Yes we can collaborate." It lists as its staff just four people, and has only one fellow.
The biggest reason why money isn't coming into the DLC's coffers is because donors want a seat at the Democratic table. That table is now located significantly farther to the left than it was during the Clinton administration.
That's a negative for the Democratic Party. Their tent is rapidly shrinking. They aren't appealing to independents. Tax increases and out-of-control spending aren't in style. That's what the Democratic now stands for.
UPDATE: Make sure and read the Lady Logician's take on this, too.
Posted Monday, February 7, 2011 9:03 PM
No comments.
SEIU, HCAN Part of the Hateful Left
Following Gabby Giffords' shooting in Tuscon, AZ, President Obama called for a new tone. He was right in that there is a hateful tone in America. Unfortunately, he didn't name who the principle hatemongers are. I'm confident that was intentional because the vast majority of hate is located in what's frequently called his political base.
This past weekend, it was announced that Sarah Palin would be the featured speaker at a fundraiser for military families. A day later, those plans had changed :
A foundation hosting a charity gala for military families canceled its plans to feature former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin at the event after "an onslaught of negative feedback" received by the organization.
The Colorado-based Sharon K Pacheco Foundation, which also support at-risk youth, announced Friday that Palin would be a host at its 2011 Patriots and Warriors Charity Gala. The next day, the foundation announced it canceled Palin's appearance.
"Due to an onslaught of personal attacks against Governor Palin and others associated with her appearance, it is with deep sadness and disappointment that, in the best interest of all, we cancel the event for safety concerns," the foundation announced on its website. The site still featured a picture of Palin next to the announcement she had been canceled.
The "onslaught of personal attacks against Gov. Palin didn't come from conservatives. They came from the hateful left. Jim Hoft, the purveyor of Gateway Pundit, has written extensively about the Hateful Left's thuggery, starting with SEIU's physical attack against Kenneth Gladney :
St. Louis County police say six people were arrested. Two of those were arrested on suspicion of assault, one of resisting arrest and three on suspicion of committing peace disturbances. Carnahan was gone when the ruckus started.
Kenneth Gladney, a 38-year-old conservative activist from St. Louis , said he was attacked by some of those arrested as he handed out yellow flags with 'Don't tread on me' printed on them. He spoke to the Post-Dispatch from the emergency room of the St. John's Mercy Medical Center, where he said he was waiting to be treated for injuries to his knee, back, elbow, shoulder and face that he suffered in the attack. Gladney, who is black, said one of his attackers, also a black man, used a racial slur against him before the attack started.
'It just seems there's no freedom of speech without being attacked,' he said.
That isn't the only hate-filled attack by the Hateful Left that Jim's written about:
Outside the Russ Carnahan town hall meeting on Thursday August 6, 2009, a SEIU Carnahan supporter smashed a woman tea party protester in the face with her camera. The woman was filming the assault by SEIU members on black conservative Kenneth Gladney.
Jim isn't the only person to deal with the Hateful Left's vitriol. Susan Ferrechio jumps into the fray with this article in the DC Examiner:
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., are decrying an "ugly campaign" by angry mobs who are disrupting town hall meetings to discuss health care reform.
The two top House Democrats penned an op-ed piece in USA Today to promote the Health Care reform legislation that is now making its way through the Congress. The bill has a price tag of more than $1 trillion and would be funded by tax increases. It would create a massive government-run insurance plan and would cut back on Medicare expenditures.
As lawmakers try to sell the plan at August town hall meetings in their districts, some have been met with angry crowds who are opposed to the steep cost of the plan and the scope of the government takeover.
Pelosi and Hoyer called the disruptions, "an ugly campaign," designed "not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue."
Pelosi and Hoyer pointed to incidents involving protesters hanging lawmakers in effigy, displaying their names on tombstones and generally shouting down any meaningful discussion.
Pelosi and Hoyer called the acts "simply un-American."
We The People remember the comments made during that "ugly campaign" designed to "prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue." Newsreal wrote about the Hateful Left's tactics in this post :
What was that, Minority Leader Pelosi? I couldn't hear you over the Hateful Left's thug tactics.
Indeed, HCAN published a 'playbook' earlier this summer , advising supporters of socialized medicine to adopt the following specific strategies for minimizing the visibility and influence of the protesters:
- You must bring enough people to drown them [the protesters] out.
- Arrive earlier than the other side does: we need to stack our folks in the front to create a wall around the Member [of Congress].
- When the other side gets too loud, we should shut them down with chants that counter their message like "Health Care Can't Wait!" and "Health Care Delayed Is Health Care Denied!"
- Another way to limit protesters ability to hijack your event is to confiscate signs or leaflets that they may bring into the venue from outside. The best way to do this is to make a blanket rule that no one can bring signs or leaflets.
- You can distribute your own signs in the event and offer them one as they enter if you choose to allow them to enter.
- It's important that you take away right wingers' opportunities to talk with reporters by making sure that your staff or leaders are in constant contact with the media who attend.'
That's before we start discussing SEIU's thug tactics in Montgomery County, Maryland :
Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that, in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action, makes his family fair game.
Waving signs denouncing bank "greed," hordes of invaders poured out of 14 school buses, up Baer's steps, and onto his front porch. As bullhorns rattled with stories of debtor calls and foreclosed homes, Baer's teenage son Jack, alone in the house, locked himself in the bathroom. "When are they going to leave?" Jack pleaded when I called to check on him.
If I wanted to make this my life's mission, I could go on and on and on and on about the Hateful Left's evil actions. The actions just in this post include a) crimes like assault and trespassing, b) political leaders calling grassroots activists' protests because they're worried about health care policy un-American and c) the Hateful Left's scripted plans for how to drown out well-intentioned, policy-oriented protests against the government's takeover of the health insurance industry.
I put this list, which is anything but comprehensive, together in less than an hour. Much less, in fact. The reality is that I'm just scratching the surface on this.
The point of all this is that President Obama's call for a new tone rings hollow. If he cares about setting a new tone, he'd call out the Hateful Left and their thug-like tactics. He would've criticized SEIU for trespassing on Don Baer's lawn while terrorizing their son. He would've criticized SEIU for beating Kenneth Gladney for selling Don't Tread On Me flags outside a health care town hall meeting in St. Louis.
He should've criticized Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer for calling concerned citizens worried about President Obama's takeover of the health insurance industry un-American. He should've criticized HCAN for putting together a plan that insulated legislators from their constituents.
That he didn't speaks volumes.
I don't think President Obama is part of the Hateful Left but HCAN and SEIU definitely are.
President Obama owes the nation an apology for not speaking out against the vilest vitriol coming from his party's base. HCAN should be shunned by all thoughtful Democrats. Where applicable, SEIU should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Anything less is justice denied.
Posted Tuesday, February 8, 2011 2:01 AM
No comments.
They're Practically Identical
Eugene Robinson has a point which he expresses well in his latest column :
As we mark the centennial of Ronald Reagan's birth, one of our major political parties has become imbued with the Gipper's political philosophy and governing style. I mean the Democrats, of course.
Why, they're practically identical, Reagan and today's Democrats. For instance, there's this famous Reagan quote:
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
I certainly can't argue that Reagan has today's Democrats pegged exactly right. "No sense of responsibility" fits today's spending and it sounds alot like President Obama's "investments" in his next-to-last SOTU.
Then there's President Obama's belief that more government is the solution to our problems. It matches up almost perfectly with Reagan's philosophy:
In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.
That sounds positively Obamaesque, doesn't it?
I think this is the first time I've written about Robinson's writings because, frankly, they've been so strange that I didn't know where to start. The other reason why I haven't written about Robinson's writings is because his columns sound more like he's a goofball from another galaxy than a rational human being.
Republicans laud Reagan's unshakable commitment to smaller government. Yet federal employment rolls grew under his watch; they shrank under Bill Clinton. Reagan had promised to eliminate the Departments of Energy and Education, but he didn't. Instead, he signed legislation that added to the Cabinet a new Department of Veterans Affairs.
Predictably, Robinson gets the facts right but only tells half the story. Thankfully, George Will set the record straight in the 1990s, explaining that "federal employment" grew under President Reagan because he restocked the military whereas President Clinton shrunk "federal employment" by cashing in on the "Peace Dividend."
What Robinson doesn't tell in the article is that government bureacracies grew more under President Clinton than during the Reagan administration. The difference came largely as a result of beefing up the military.
The Washington Post is getting a nasty reputation as a result of Eugene Robinson. It's time they cut ties with him. If they don't, they'll lose credibility.
Posted Tuesday, February 8, 2011 5:10 AM
No comments.
