According to former US Representative from Rhode Island, Patrick Kennedy, the White House and political operation of Obama--the dude who promised to end business as usual in DC, it's a "quid pro quo" operation. Kennedy admits that most of the folks he deals with in the White House are old friends, but he says it is still important that they know he is not a "slouch," and he figures his $35,000 contribution to the re-elect campaign will guarantee administration cooperation on his pet project. Obama was going to heal the vitriolic dialog, and get things done.
To start with he should have told Harry Reid, the guy who has done absolutely nothing in his position as majority leader for three and a half years--except hold votes on Obama's budgets, which have gone down in flames all three years-including when Harry had 60 democrats. And while we're on the subject of business as usual, Obama must have been talking about the previous democrat administration when entrance to the White House was referred to as a turnstile-put you money in the slot and come on in. That however was NEVER said about the Bush administration, and you can be sure that if Brian Williams could have proved that it would have led the news every night for 8 years.
So Mr Clean isn't so clean, but then we are not surprised--it is Chicago politics after all.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/former-dem-congressman-kennedy-alleges-quid-pro-quo-access-white-house_637051.html
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
"Creepy!"
Peggy Noonan called Barak Obama Creepy.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
I wrote her a letter saying I did not have her ivy league friends, megaphone, platform, or money, but I knew the dude was bad news asked what her excuse was so terribly wrong. No answer, duh!
If you scroll down a few of the comments you'll see other people castigating Noonan for her support of Obama in 08. One guy tells her the next time she is tempted to vote for a savior to stay home.
I would ditto that.
This country doesn't do messiahs in the white house we do leaders who have at least some understanding and appreciation of the country.
http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html
Monday, March 12, 2012
Cartoonish Democrats
The WaPo put all their news in the Style Section on March 12, 2012.
The link is an article about cartoonist Gary Trudeau taking on the abortion
issue. It seems perfectly appropriate that the spokesman for the
main, and often seemingly only, issue in the Dems platform is a
comic-literally. Though we may feel like Mr Trudeau and his fellow
leftists in the Dem party is a joke, it's a very expensive and bad joke-- one that is hurting everyone very significantly.
Dems always say, well Republicans are in favor of capital punishment. That's true. Both sides favor one kind of execution. The difference is, the right goes after the guilty, and the left kills the innocent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/doonesbury-creator-garry-trudeau-discusses-divisive-strips-about-abortion/2012/03/11/gIQAL7Is5R_story.html
The link is an article about cartoonist Gary Trudeau taking on the abortion
issue. It seems perfectly appropriate that the spokesman for the
main, and often seemingly only, issue in the Dems platform is a
comic-literally. Though we may feel like Mr Trudeau and his fellow
leftists in the Dem party is a joke, it's a very expensive and bad joke-- one that is hurting everyone very significantly.
Dems always say, well Republicans are in favor of capital punishment. That's true. Both sides favor one kind of execution. The difference is, the right goes after the guilty, and the left kills the innocent.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/doonesbury-creator-garry-trudeau-discusses-divisive-strips-about-abortion/2012/03/11/gIQAL7Is5R_story.html
Advocate for Unconstitutionality of Obamacare
The Style section of the WaPo, Monday, March 12, 2012 has the most interesting news in the paper today.
The link is to an article about the Attorney who will be arguing against
Obamacare on behalf of the suit filed by 26 states at the end of the
month. He sounds an impressive person and has Supreme Court potential
should the "Alinsky rebels currently in the WH not get re-elected."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/esteemed-lawyer-paul-clements-next-challenge-is-arguing-against-health-care-law/2012/03/06/gIQAESK65R_story.html
BTW- headline on the front page "As gas prices rise, president's
ratings fall," but we already know that. There is an interesting graph of poll results. Obama has high negatives on anything having to do with the economy, deficit, budget, and gas prices--up to 63%. However, when asked which party is preferred to handle matters, and specifically issues involving women the dems way out-poll the GOP. This is an issue the women's group are going to have to deal with in a high visibility manner.
The link is a closer look at the Post's poll, which apparently is more not good news for Obama.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/washington-post-poll-contradicts-washington-post-narrative-women-voters_633469.html?nopager=1
The link is to an article about the Attorney who will be arguing against
Obamacare on behalf of the suit filed by 26 states at the end of the
month. He sounds an impressive person and has Supreme Court potential
should the "Alinsky rebels currently in the WH not get re-elected."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/esteemed-lawyer-paul-clements-next-challenge-is-arguing-against-health-care-law/2012/03/06/gIQAESK65R_story.html
BTW- headline on the front page "As gas prices rise, president's
ratings fall," but we already know that. There is an interesting graph of poll results. Obama has high negatives on anything having to do with the economy, deficit, budget, and gas prices--up to 63%. However, when asked which party is preferred to handle matters, and specifically issues involving women the dems way out-poll the GOP. This is an issue the women's group are going to have to deal with in a high visibility manner.
The link is a closer look at the Post's poll, which apparently is more not good news for Obama.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/washington-post-poll-contradicts-washington-post-narrative-women-voters_633469.html?nopager=1
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Executive Control of Everything
We will be in real trouble when the leadership in the military agrees with Obama and like politicians who disdain the separation of powers and other limits on fed power in the quest to "get things done" George Will makes this observation today in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-follows-the-progressive-presidents-model-of-martial-language/2012/01/27/gIQAcobPWQ_story.html
Civilian control of the defense apparatus does not include, at the moment, getting things done internally, but Obama proposed exactly this in his first campaign by expanding police forces to be equipped and trained as military forces
This has already happened
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html
At a meeting in DC last week of the Association of the U.S Army, Chief of Staff General Odienro commented on Obama's SOTU and its beginning and ending with praise for the military's cohesiveness and efficiency in achieving an objective saying that our politics should be similarly organized and efficient.
The General said he had been been trying to tell Obama that.
the audience chuckled
Several years ago Markos Moulitsas of the left-wing web site thedailykos.com was interviewed on C-SPAN regarding a book he had written.
He told Brian Lamb that he was a Republican before he joined the Army and went to Desert Storm. He said when he saw how effective the military is at stating objectives and then accomplishing them by interacting and cooperation, he realized that all society should be thusly organized. Disappointingly Moulitsas was never challenged by Lamb. The military is many wonderful things, but it is NOT a Democracy where opposing views are essential and compromise necessary for the continuation of the system as laid out in our Constitution.
Put all this together with Obama's request to "re-organize" the entire Executive Branch and his theme of "can't wait" and this nation has a problem that goes way beyond Obamacare.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obama-follows-the-progressive-presidents-model-of-martial-language/2012/01/27/gIQAcobPWQ_story.html
Civilian control of the defense apparatus does not include, at the moment, getting things done internally, but Obama proposed exactly this in his first campaign by expanding police forces to be equipped and trained as military forces
This has already happened
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html
At a meeting in DC last week of the Association of the U.S Army, Chief of Staff General Odienro commented on Obama's SOTU and its beginning and ending with praise for the military's cohesiveness and efficiency in achieving an objective saying that our politics should be similarly organized and efficient.
The General said he had been been trying to tell Obama that.
the audience chuckled
Several years ago Markos Moulitsas of the left-wing web site thedailykos.com was interviewed on C-SPAN regarding a book he had written.
He told Brian Lamb that he was a Republican before he joined the Army and went to Desert Storm. He said when he saw how effective the military is at stating objectives and then accomplishing them by interacting and cooperation, he realized that all society should be thusly organized. Disappointingly Moulitsas was never challenged by Lamb. The military is many wonderful things, but it is NOT a Democracy where opposing views are essential and compromise necessary for the continuation of the system as laid out in our Constitution.
Put all this together with Obama's request to "re-organize" the entire Executive Branch and his theme of "can't wait" and this nation has a problem that goes way beyond Obamacare.
Friday, October 14, 2011
The Far Left in Fairfax
Last night in Fairfax County Virginia, the far-left wing of the local Democrat Party convened in Bonnie Brae precinct to help their beloved, but failing candidate for the county Board of Supervisors, Janet Oleszek. State Senator Chap Petersen, and School Board candidate Megan McLaughlin did most of the talking for Oleszek, since debating, explaining, and having ideas are not her strong points. In 2007 when she ran for the Senate against Ken Cuccinelli the Washington Post wrote that she was "embarrassingly short of substance." Just last Sunday when they evaluated her current performance against John Cook, they labeled her "lackluster," which must be Post speak for dumb.
The format for the contest last night, the fifth of ten such events, was that each of the three candidates had 30 minutes to introduce themselves, explain their programs and take questions. The incumbent, John Cook went first and answered many questions with exacting detail. He is quite plainly the best supervisor this magisterial district has ever had, and is the best on the current board. The Independent candidate, who often serves as a foil for Oleszek, meaning she only has to talk 1/3 of the time and not half,while he lobs the bombs, commented on Cook's answers and took some questions as well. Oleszek then calls up her friends to do most of the talking for her, and all of the talking was about the school board. Almost none of it had to do with issues that the Board of Supervisors would deal with, and she took no questions.
The most interesting thing about the evening was not that Janet did not talk much--that was actually a blessing for those in the audience. The interesting stuff was what candidates McLaughlin and Petersen had to say, and the fact that they are so closely allied with the candidate furthest to the left probably in the entire state and that their remarks were often at odds with their campaign speeches in other venues with other audiences. McLaughlin portrays herself as a reformer, advocating transparency and an audit of the school budget. Clearly her political party is more important to her than good governance, because no one would say that having Janet Oleszek on the BOS would mean good governance. So, her claim as a reformer is in doubt. And, she also agreed with the implied premise that taxes should be raised and that the school budget should go up automatically. Petersen was then asked to explain the State retirement system for teachers, a subject over which the county board would have no jurisdiction. Petersen was happy to help out since he is the one who recruited Oleszek to run in the first place as they are ideologically sympatico.
The bottom line is that the school board, dominated by Democrats, and indeed the school system has serious issues and a vote for a Democrat like McLaughlin is a vote for the status-quo. With half of the board resigning, everyone in the county understands the status-quo is no longer tolerable.
The same is true of the Board of Supervisors where the current leadership, if we can call it that,is ignoring the under funded public employees pension funds and the projected $100 plus million short-fall beginning a year from now. One of the more astonishing things McLaughlin said last night was that the county has pulled out of the recession. This county has never been in a recession., but it is coming with hundreds and maybe thousands of lay-offs from the federal government. It's just hard to imagine where she has been, but not difficult to understand where she wants to go and that is not a place that would be good for the Fairfax school board or school system. The only logical vote in the Braddock race is for retired Navy Captain Nell Hurley.
As for Petersen,the Virginia version of Huey Long, his left-leaning politics were evident though he constantly poses as a "moderate." No one can push someone as far to the left and yet as totally incompetent as Janet Oleszek, and keep up that pretense. The vote here is for Gerarda Culipher.
The format for the contest last night, the fifth of ten such events, was that each of the three candidates had 30 minutes to introduce themselves, explain their programs and take questions. The incumbent, John Cook went first and answered many questions with exacting detail. He is quite plainly the best supervisor this magisterial district has ever had, and is the best on the current board. The Independent candidate, who often serves as a foil for Oleszek, meaning she only has to talk 1/3 of the time and not half,while he lobs the bombs, commented on Cook's answers and took some questions as well. Oleszek then calls up her friends to do most of the talking for her, and all of the talking was about the school board. Almost none of it had to do with issues that the Board of Supervisors would deal with, and she took no questions.
The most interesting thing about the evening was not that Janet did not talk much--that was actually a blessing for those in the audience. The interesting stuff was what candidates McLaughlin and Petersen had to say, and the fact that they are so closely allied with the candidate furthest to the left probably in the entire state and that their remarks were often at odds with their campaign speeches in other venues with other audiences. McLaughlin portrays herself as a reformer, advocating transparency and an audit of the school budget. Clearly her political party is more important to her than good governance, because no one would say that having Janet Oleszek on the BOS would mean good governance. So, her claim as a reformer is in doubt. And, she also agreed with the implied premise that taxes should be raised and that the school budget should go up automatically. Petersen was then asked to explain the State retirement system for teachers, a subject over which the county board would have no jurisdiction. Petersen was happy to help out since he is the one who recruited Oleszek to run in the first place as they are ideologically sympatico.
The bottom line is that the school board, dominated by Democrats, and indeed the school system has serious issues and a vote for a Democrat like McLaughlin is a vote for the status-quo. With half of the board resigning, everyone in the county understands the status-quo is no longer tolerable.
The same is true of the Board of Supervisors where the current leadership, if we can call it that,is ignoring the under funded public employees pension funds and the projected $100 plus million short-fall beginning a year from now. One of the more astonishing things McLaughlin said last night was that the county has pulled out of the recession. This county has never been in a recession., but it is coming with hundreds and maybe thousands of lay-offs from the federal government. It's just hard to imagine where she has been, but not difficult to understand where she wants to go and that is not a place that would be good for the Fairfax school board or school system. The only logical vote in the Braddock race is for retired Navy Captain Nell Hurley.
As for Petersen,the Virginia version of Huey Long, his left-leaning politics were evident though he constantly poses as a "moderate." No one can push someone as far to the left and yet as totally incompetent as Janet Oleszek, and keep up that pretense. The vote here is for Gerarda Culipher.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The Definition of Corruption
I heartily agree with Bruce Ackerman and Ian Ayres in "A Hatch Act reply to the high court, (Tuesday, 26 January, 2010 in the Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012502970.html), that all corporations or entities, especially the very large ones, should have to make a choice between receiving money from the federal government and endorsing candidates. Like all Democrats they are outraged by the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the First Amendment and give due deference to Freedom of Speech.
Their solution is to disallow any federal contractor from contributing to political campaigns., and they specifically mention defense contractors, believing that would cut down on money for Republicans. I agree with that, but I would broaden it to any federal payout. If an entity gets a subsidy, whether for a service or a good or not, it should not then be able to turn around and subsidize the person or persons who decided to give them the subsidy in the first place. This is the very definition of political corruption.
Not long after the 1994 political revolution, Newt Gingrich proposed just that, but the proposal did not last through the day. In the lead with the hatchet was AARP; and interested parties included Planned Parenthood, La Raza, ACORN, the NRA et al. There isn't a substantive difference between a company that builds and maintains an airport for the benefit of one politician and 10 of his friends, the company that supplies replacement toilets for the Army, and the group that uses federal money to locate AIDS patients among illegal itinerant workers. Whether the business is for or not for profit, they are all in the business of generating income and they all get their opportunity to do this from the American taxpayer. But, the taxpayer only has the privilege of paying, never of deciding who gets the cash.
So, yes, Mrs. Pelosi, who promised the most transparent and honest government four years ago and who has delivered just the opposite, here's your chance to produce as promised. Follow the advice of these two Yale lawyers, and ban all contributions to members of Congress from entities receiving federal subsidies. Indeed!
Their solution is to disallow any federal contractor from contributing to political campaigns., and they specifically mention defense contractors, believing that would cut down on money for Republicans. I agree with that, but I would broaden it to any federal payout. If an entity gets a subsidy, whether for a service or a good or not, it should not then be able to turn around and subsidize the person or persons who decided to give them the subsidy in the first place. This is the very definition of political corruption.
Not long after the 1994 political revolution, Newt Gingrich proposed just that, but the proposal did not last through the day. In the lead with the hatchet was AARP; and interested parties included Planned Parenthood, La Raza, ACORN, the NRA et al. There isn't a substantive difference between a company that builds and maintains an airport for the benefit of one politician and 10 of his friends, the company that supplies replacement toilets for the Army, and the group that uses federal money to locate AIDS patients among illegal itinerant workers. Whether the business is for or not for profit, they are all in the business of generating income and they all get their opportunity to do this from the American taxpayer. But, the taxpayer only has the privilege of paying, never of deciding who gets the cash.
So, yes, Mrs. Pelosi, who promised the most transparent and honest government four years ago and who has delivered just the opposite, here's your chance to produce as promised. Follow the advice of these two Yale lawyers, and ban all contributions to members of Congress from entities receiving federal subsidies. Indeed!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)