Contributed by guest blogger Joe Mays:
Americans are slowly waking up with a horrific hangover, and we are saying as we did twenty-five years ago - It's morning again in America.
Ronald Reagan's 1984 ad campaign, which etched this slogan into our collective history, focused on a calmly determined and optimistic population that was putting the pieces of our fractured country back together through hard work and determination. It's no wonder that, given these troubled times, Americans all over this country are waking up saying, "Was Dick Cheney really in my bed?"
Yes, we have a bad hangover.
But Americans are optimistic and rightly so. The latest ABC/Washinton Post poll finds that over two-thirds of us approve of the job that President Obama is doing, and for the first time in six years we think our nation is on the right track. The polls, in this case, are correct. We are moving in the right direction. Just as one might grasp for a glass of water after a late-night binge, Americans elected a new and different President. And now we are all looking for a way to repair the damage and leave future generations with a nation better than how we found it. I see evidence of this on both the left and the right. The left is looking to invest in and change our education system, health care system, energy policy, and our environment. The right is finally furious with the massive debts that we have amassed. Of course, these two goals are at odds - it's impossible to make investments that require us to spend money we don't have *and* reduce our debt at the same time. But at least we're all concerned with issues that will make our country better rather than what we can do to keep the late-night binge going.
This alone will make our country stronger. As long as every American - Republican, Democratic, and Independent - keeps future generations in mind and makes their voices heard and calmly works for what they believe in, we will all fight. And we'll all eventually prosper. This is what makes our nation great.
Those who are acquainted with me know I'm not a morning person. But this is a morning I'm happy to get up for.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Huh?
OK, I promise that I'm not going to turn this into a reprinting of every RNC e-mail, but I got another one yesterday that I found interesting. The best way I can think to describe it is schizophrenic. The big news yesterday was Sen. Arlen Specter's defection from the Republican to the Democratic party. This move, along with Al Franken's eventual seating (and he will be seated) will give the Democratic party a fillibuster-proof 60 members in the Senate. Obviously this does not make the RNC happy. Here's Michael Steele's take:
OK, that's all well and good. If you looked at the latest poll numbers, Specter was losing significantly to his Republican primary challenger (lagging by 21% according to this poll), so you can certainly see an element of opportunism here. However, Steele goes on to say this:
Huh? Let me see if I've got this right. Steele says that Specter's claim that he is more ideologically a Democrat is crap. He was going to lose in the primary because of his left-wing voting record. Anybody else see the contradiction here? If he has a left-wing voting record, isn't that pretty much absolute proof that he is ideologically more a Democrat than a Republican?
Of course, I don't believe that he has a "left-wing" voting record. He has pretty much been a right-centrist for most of his career (and here are the numbers to back that up). As such, this probably isn't as much of a game-changer as it appears to be on the surface. Specter was one of the potential Republicans that the Democrats could swing to their side in legislation (as they did with the stimulus vote) and I believe that's still primarily where he will be. The idea that he will now blindly back the Democratic party on every issue is unfounded. The Republicans should now view him as someone that they potentially can pick off to stop legislation. To that end, it's probably not the best of ideas to be trashing him all over the place in the media.
For the next post, I'm going to do something a little different. Or, rather, I won't be doing anything at all. We will have a first here on Better Than Life: a guest blogger! The inimitable Joe Mays will be contributing a post. Look for that on Friday.
Finally, on a personal note Christy had her 20-week ultrasound today. Most importantly, we found out that the baby is developing right on schedule and everything looks healthy and great! Of most interest to everyone else, we also found out the sex of the soon-to-be-newest Delaney! I have agreed to let my wife break that story, so (if you don't have it bookmarked already) head on over to Christy's blog for the big news!
Specter claimed it was philosophical--and pointed his finger of blame at Republicans all over America for his defection to the Democrats. He told us all to go jump in the lake today.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word he said.
Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party--and the principles--that elected him and nurtured him.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe a word he said.
Arlen Specter committed a purely political and self-serving act today. He simply believes he has a better chance of saving his political hide and his job as a Democrat. He loves the title of Senator more than he loves the party--and the principles--that elected him and nurtured him.
OK, that's all well and good. If you looked at the latest poll numbers, Specter was losing significantly to his Republican primary challenger (lagging by 21% according to this poll), so you can certainly see an element of opportunism here. However, Steele goes on to say this:
Facing defeat in Pennsylvania's 2010 Republican primary due to his left-wing voting record, and an end to his 30 year career in the U.S. Senate, he has peddled his services--and his vote--to the leftist Obama Democrats who aim to remake America with their leftist plan.
Huh? Let me see if I've got this right. Steele says that Specter's claim that he is more ideologically a Democrat is crap. He was going to lose in the primary because of his left-wing voting record. Anybody else see the contradiction here? If he has a left-wing voting record, isn't that pretty much absolute proof that he is ideologically more a Democrat than a Republican?
Of course, I don't believe that he has a "left-wing" voting record. He has pretty much been a right-centrist for most of his career (and here are the numbers to back that up). As such, this probably isn't as much of a game-changer as it appears to be on the surface. Specter was one of the potential Republicans that the Democrats could swing to their side in legislation (as they did with the stimulus vote) and I believe that's still primarily where he will be. The idea that he will now blindly back the Democratic party on every issue is unfounded. The Republicans should now view him as someone that they potentially can pick off to stop legislation. To that end, it's probably not the best of ideas to be trashing him all over the place in the media.
For the next post, I'm going to do something a little different. Or, rather, I won't be doing anything at all. We will have a first here on Better Than Life: a guest blogger! The inimitable Joe Mays will be contributing a post. Look for that on Friday.
Finally, on a personal note Christy had her 20-week ultrasound today. Most importantly, we found out that the baby is developing right on schedule and everything looks healthy and great! Of most interest to everyone else, we also found out the sex of the soon-to-be-newest Delaney! I have agreed to let my wife break that story, so (if you don't have it bookmarked already) head on over to Christy's blog for the big news!
Friday, April 24, 2009
Window into the RNC Mind
As I have mentioned before, due to my one-time campaign contribution to John McCain in the primaries, I now have the joy of being on the RNC e-mail mailing list. As such, I get 1-2 e-mails a week from them (usually asking me for money). I read them for the same reason that I watch Bill O'Reilly's talking points everyday: I don't want to be accused of getting all my information from one side and I am perpetually hopeful that a sane, rational conservative voice will once again emerge from within the Republican party. Well, this week's 2 e-mails pissed me off more than usual so I wanted to share them. I apologize in advance that this will be very long, but one of my biggest problems with these e-mails is a complete distortion of facts and out-of-context quotes and I don't want to make the same mistake. Anyway, given my lack of blogging recently you should have plenty of time to get through it all by the time I post next.
So here is e-mail #1, in it's entirety (From Michael Steele; Subject: More Profiles in Arrogance; Note that all bolded words appear that way in the original e-mail. I have italicized the whole thing to make it stand apart from my words):
Dear John,
Recently in his speech in France, Barack Obama called America "arrogant." 1 I'm sure the French loved it -- And so did the liberal press.
But who is this president who calls the American people arrogant?
This is the same politician whose supporters anointed him "The One" and a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." 2
This is the same man who indicated his disdain for small town and working Americans when he said they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," while addressing a group of San Francisco caviar and champagne liberal elitists.
How arrogant is that? Arrogant enough?
In truth, President Obama seems to champion the twisted "Blame-America First" mentality of the worst of the American left.
More importantly, it shows an absence of wisdom to criticize the United States while on foreign soil, and then join with the Pelosi-Reid Democrats in Congress to do everything possible to end American exceptionalism and create a weak, dependent socialist state patterned after the examples of Europe.
• He has taken steps towards nationalizing American auto companies; firing executives while leaving in power the same Union Bosses who funded his campaign and helped cripple the U.S.'s manufacturing base.
• He has refused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans 3 so he can make them hostages to the whims of the Federal government.
• As a lawyer, Obama once sued the same financial institutions on behalf of radical groups like ACORN for failing to use leftist social engineering criteria for lending instead of an applicant's ability to repay a loan.
• He campaigned on "transparency" and "integrity" in government and then has nominated a rogue gallery of tax evaders, Washington bureaucrats, and lobbyists to run his Administration.
• Obama brazenly follows his chief of staff's maxim of "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before" 4 to cripple our free markets with massive taxation and spending that wrests away our freedoms and puts even our great-grandchildren in debt.
• And now, anyone who dares speak out against or challenge Obama's ultra-liberal agenda, such as the hundreds of thousands of patriots who attended last week's Tea Parties, should expect to be labeled "unhealthy" by this Adminstration. 5 Now, THAT is arrogance!
You know that Barack Obama's hubris and charisma conceal the inexperience and lack of wisdom that our country cannot afford in its president.
And though the teleprompter and mainstream media liberals may delay America's realization of the peril the Obama White House portends for our future for a while, the eventual failure of leftist policies and ineffective leadership will not.
We must be ready when that time comes.
Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Democrats' arrogance of power and support GOP Members of Congress as they work to hold the Obama Democrats accountable to the American people, by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the Republican National Committee today. Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2009 and 2010 and lay the groundwork for ending Barack Obama's grip on power in 2012. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. John, the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab -- please take this opportunity right now to support our fight against ineffective leadership and failed legislation by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you.
1 "[A]rrogant." (President Barack Obama, Town Hall, Strasbourg, France, 4/3/09)
2"[T]he moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks After The Democrat Primary, St. Paul, MN, 6/3/08)
3"[R]efused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans..." (Stuart Varney, "Obama Wants To Control The Banks," The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/09)
4"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." (Gerald F. Seib, "In Crisis, Opportunity For Obama," The Wall Street Journal, 11/21/08)
5"I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy," (David Axelrod, "Face the Nation" 4/19/09)
OK, well I don't want to turn this into something with the length of a thesis paper, so I'm just going to pick a couple of these to address. Just want to make it clear that just because I am not specifically commenting on it does not mean that I am conceding it as a valid criticism of Obama.
So, first of all, here's some irony for you. Following up the statement "Barack Obama called America 'arrogant'" with "I'm sure the French loved it." That is precisely the type of arrogance he was talking about. And it wasn't a slam on America; if anything it was a slam on the Bush administration. The quote comes from this BBC article and the full quote is "He said the US had been 'arrogant' and 'dismissive' towards its allies, while there was "insidious" anti-Americanism in Europe. He said these attitudes had to change." This is classic diplomacy. You can't go to Europe and say "this anti-americanism needs to stop" - that would be arrogant - you need to say "we've both made mistakes and we need to start over again."
Next, I have a real problem with the line that he was " a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as 'the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal'." This is an utterly ridiculous distortion. You can read the transcript of the speech that it was taken from here , but here is the full quote: "The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals."
From a simple scorecard standpoint, the words "I" or "me" appear 4 times in the above; the words "we" and "our" appear 8. This strikes me as a call to action for all Americans, not an "I am the One that can make it happen."
Apart from that, it's the general tone of the e-mail that bothers me, but more on that later.
Here is e-mail #2 (From Michael Steele; Subject: Your Weekly Trunk):
Issue 7 April 21, 2009
Welcome to The Weekly Trunk -- The Republican National Committee's new weekly email update on all the latest news and political happenings. The goal of The Weekly Trunk is to inform and arm you with the facts you need to spread our conservative message and refute the misstatements of the Democrats.
This week's issue features...
More Afraid of U.S. Veterans than Muslim Terrorists?
In the topsy-turvy Obama Department of Homeland Security, real terrorists sponsor "man-caused disasters" and our own valiant veterans are the threat. (Jonah Goldberg, "(Right) Winging It at the DHS: What's the Real Threat to Our Country?" National Review Online, 4/17/09)
What's Your Opinion? Do you believe with the Obama Administration that our military veterans should be labeled as "terrorists?" View Chairman Steele's video on this topic. We want to hear from you. Post a video on the RNC's Facebook page today and let your voice be heard.
Tell It Like It Is, Governors
Republican Governors Haley Barbour and Mark Sanford shed some light on the hyper-partisan policies of the Obama Democrats. (Harry Enten & Jade Taenzler, "GOP Govs Hammer Obama," MSNBC, 4/16/09)
The Never Ending Campaign
Perhaps he agrees that he was a much better presidential candidate than he is a president -- because his campaign is still running. (Kenneth P. Vogel, "Obama Campaign Still Funds Operations," Politico, 4/15/09)
Eco-Madness
Despite mounting evidence that the world is actually on a cooling trend, Obama's green zealots push forward their plan to cripple our economy with unnecessary environmental regulations. (Tom LoBianco, "EPA Ups Pressure for Climate Change Action; 'Endangerment Finding' Seen as Step Toward Regulation," The Washington Times, 4/17/09)
What Will It Be Next Week, Governor Sebelius?
Last week it was tax evasion for President Obama's health secretary nominee, Kansas Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius. This week, it's an "oversight" in reporting political donations from an abortionist. ("Sebelius Lowballed Donations From Abortion Doc: She Got About $35,000, Nearly Three Times the $12,450 She Had Reported," Associated Press/MSNBC, 4/13/09)
The Democrats' False Diagnosis
Democrats are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to debating private vs. public health care. (Kerry N. Weems & Benjamin E. Sasse, "Is Government Health Insurance Cheap? The False Comparison Between the Costs of Public and Private Medical Plans," The Wall Street Journal, 4/14/09)
So It's OK Now, Is It?
Barack Obama pursues PR tactics for which President Bush was derided. (Jim Treacher, "Staged Military Photo Ops Suddenly Awesome," Hot Air, 4/14/09)
Card Check Reality Check?
With Democrats now in power, are unions learning how very bad their plan to take away workers' right to a secret ballot vote on unionization looks? (Michael Barone, "Unions Can't Dictate an Increase in Power," The Detroit News, 4/15/09)
Department of Propaganda?
Former L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks wants government funding for "independent" media. How independent would government-funded media likely be? ("Obama Appointee Suggests Radical Plan for Newspaper Bailout," FOXNews.com, 4/16/09)
New Best Friends Forever?
Newt Gingrich comments on Barack Obama's chumminess with Venezuelan Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez. ("Gingrich Raps Obama on Chavez Summit Greeting," The Associated Press, 4/20/09)
Blame America First, Last & Always...
Barack Obama follows up the tactic of his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and falsely blames America for Mexico's problems with firearms violence. (Editorial, "Obama's Gun Lies," The Washington Times, 4/20/09)
A Lack of Intelligence
Former Attorney General Mukasey and former CIA Director Hayden explain the negative impact of the Obama Administration's handling of intelligence gathering. (Michael Hayden & Michael B. Mukasey, "The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror: The Point of Interrogation is Intelligence, Not Confession," The Wall Street Journal, 4/17/09)
Check out this definitive list of Vice President Joe Biden's long and impressive history of gaffess (Biden's List of Political Blunders," FOXNews.com, 4/17/09)
Again, just gonna pick out a few to highlight.
Firstly, the U.S. Veterans vs. Muslim terrorists comment. Come on? Really? If we're now just making things up that neither Obama or his administration ever said, here's some suggestions for next week's e-mail: "Obama denies gravity: says we can all fly if we just believe", "Obama to the uninsured: 'Hurry up and die already'", "Obama comes out against children, thinks all babies should be eaten at birth." The link that the RNC provides is to an article in the National Review which is a criticism of this report. Since I'm sure you are sick of clicking on links by now, I'll summarize. The report says that right-wing extremist groups (and defines these as mainly white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups) may be using the election of the first black president as well as the current economic downturn as recruiting tools. It then goes on to say that one of the groups that they think will be targeted will be "disgruntled U.S. veterans." At no point does the report come even remotely close to saying that this danger is even in the same league as foreign terrorists. This is just a complete fabrication. But I do have to give the National Review article credit for its dissent. I mean, it's not like any disgruntled war vet has ever joined an anti-government group and then committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. I mean, apart from this guy.
Secondly (and you knew it was coming), is the "Eco-Madness" paragraph. Well, at least now I have some clarification. I have always believed that most Republicans did not believe in climate change and were merely paying the issue lip service, and now I have proof. The link the RNC provides mentions absolutely nothing about this alleged "cooling trend." Presumably, it comes from this article by George Will. Let's be clear. I love George Will. Absolutely adore him. He's definitely my favorite political pundit and he's probably in my top-10 list of people I'd most like to meet. But he is just dead wrong on this issue. Nate Silver at fivethiryeight.com does a great job of taking Will to task on this issue here. Not gonna say anymore about it now because my views on this subject have been well chronicled on this blog.
So this brings me to my final point, which is a statement on the tone of both of these e-mails. Apart from providing completion, my ulterior motive in presenting the complete texts of both e-mails was to highlight something about them. Or, more accurately, to highlight something that is not present. And that is an idea. Not one single idea of what the Republicans want to do. Not one single piece of legislation that they are trying to get through which they are urging us to call up our local Congressman and support. Not even a vision of what they believe are the major legislative challenges. Well, that's not quite true. They state one objective quite clearly: "the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab." There it is in plain english; they are the party of "no". Their objective is not to "provide a constructive opposition and support the conservative values of our constituency" it's just "to hold back the Obama Democrats." This infuriates me because I do not like unchecked power. I desperately want a sane, rational counter-point to the Democratic party. Congressional Democrats will (and have) put ridiculously wasteful spending and protectionist measures into bills. I want a conservative opposition that is willing to compromise so that we get bills which give the best chance of having a positive impact on the U.S. But this is following the Rush playbook: rant and rave against everything they do; hope it fails; then get back into power in the ensuing backlash. That might be good politics, but it's horrible governing. In the short-term it isolates those in the middle while at the same time whips up your base into a frenzy. When instead of saying "we don't agree with this policy and here's why" you say "this policy is just another example of Obama trying make America a weak, dependent, socialist state" it is not surprising that people start getting pushed towards extremism. Maybe I was just naive, but I actually expected more from the Republicans. It makes me angry, but more than anything it just saddens me. I think my party is officially dead.
And just in case you're not completely sick of reading political e-mails, as a counterpoint I present the text of the e-mail I received from the Obama administration (also soliciting money from me) last week (From David Plouffe; Subject: Calls For Failure):
John --
It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.
Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.
In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.
The change we need won't come without a fight -- no meaningful change ever does. Just like in the campaign, Barack Obama can't win without you by his side. Town by town, block by block, this grassroots movement is organizing and uniting Americans behind the President's plan.
But to finish what we started, we need resources.
Will you join the fight? Before Monday, April 13th, make a donation of $25 or more to help President Obama turn this country around.
We know that Washington won't change overnight. It'll take time, commitment, and money, but this grassroots movement can make change a reality -- affordable health care, a clean energy economy, and quality education for all. We know we are asking a lot from you -- but the stakes couldn't be higher.
It's why we worked so hard to elect President Obama, and he's counting on us to follow through. Today, you can make a difference.
Jo Ann from Charlotte, NC, has joined thousands of other supporters this week to support this movement and reject the same old politics:
I am a sixty-two year old woman on disability. I followed the election closely and did what I could to get Obama elected. Since he was inaugurated, I have watched in awe to see how much has already been accomplished. I live in Charlotte, NC where the unemployment rates are double digits and going up. My youngest son was out of work for 8 months because the company he worked for went out of business. So many workers and families are losing jobs and homes. There's so much more to be done, but this budget has to be passed and the programs have to be put into practice before things start to recover. That's why I support President Obama and his plans.
Americans like Jo Ann deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.
We need to seize this crucial moment to help pass this budget and invest in the one thing that can make President Obama's promises of change a reality -- the movement you built.
Before the Monday deadline, strengthen this movement. Make a donation of $25 or more today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/fightattacks
Thank you for all that you do,
David Plouffe
So here is e-mail #1, in it's entirety (From Michael Steele; Subject: More Profiles in Arrogance; Note that all bolded words appear that way in the original e-mail. I have italicized the whole thing to make it stand apart from my words):
Dear John,
Recently in his speech in France, Barack Obama called America "arrogant." 1 I'm sure the French loved it -- And so did the liberal press.
But who is this president who calls the American people arrogant?
This is the same politician whose supporters anointed him "The One" and a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as "the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." 2
This is the same man who indicated his disdain for small town and working Americans when he said they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them," while addressing a group of San Francisco caviar and champagne liberal elitists.
How arrogant is that? Arrogant enough?
In truth, President Obama seems to champion the twisted "Blame-America First" mentality of the worst of the American left.
More importantly, it shows an absence of wisdom to criticize the United States while on foreign soil, and then join with the Pelosi-Reid Democrats in Congress to do everything possible to end American exceptionalism and create a weak, dependent socialist state patterned after the examples of Europe.
• He has taken steps towards nationalizing American auto companies; firing executives while leaving in power the same Union Bosses who funded his campaign and helped cripple the U.S.'s manufacturing base.
• He has refused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans 3 so he can make them hostages to the whims of the Federal government.
• As a lawyer, Obama once sued the same financial institutions on behalf of radical groups like ACORN for failing to use leftist social engineering criteria for lending instead of an applicant's ability to repay a loan.
• He campaigned on "transparency" and "integrity" in government and then has nominated a rogue gallery of tax evaders, Washington bureaucrats, and lobbyists to run his Administration.
• Obama brazenly follows his chief of staff's maxim of "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before" 4 to cripple our free markets with massive taxation and spending that wrests away our freedoms and puts even our great-grandchildren in debt.
• And now, anyone who dares speak out against or challenge Obama's ultra-liberal agenda, such as the hundreds of thousands of patriots who attended last week's Tea Parties, should expect to be labeled "unhealthy" by this Adminstration. 5 Now, THAT is arrogance!
You know that Barack Obama's hubris and charisma conceal the inexperience and lack of wisdom that our country cannot afford in its president.
And though the teleprompter and mainstream media liberals may delay America's realization of the peril the Obama White House portends for our future for a while, the eventual failure of leftist policies and ineffective leadership will not.
We must be ready when that time comes.
Please help the Republican Party's effort to spread the word about the Democrats' arrogance of power and support GOP Members of Congress as they work to hold the Obama Democrats accountable to the American people, by making a contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the Republican National Committee today. Your gift will also help support the recruitment and election of principled candidates who will defeat the Democrats in 2009 and 2010 and lay the groundwork for ending Barack Obama's grip on power in 2012. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Michael Steele
Chairman, Republican National Committee
P.S. John, the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab -- please take this opportunity right now to support our fight against ineffective leadership and failed legislation by making a secure online contribution of $1,000, $500, $100, $50, or $25 to the RNC today. Thank you.
1 "[A]rrogant." (President Barack Obama, Town Hall, Strasbourg, France, 4/3/09)
2"[T]he moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks After The Democrat Primary, St. Paul, MN, 6/3/08)
3"[R]efused to let financial firms pay back taxpayer-funded bailout loans..." (Stuart Varney, "Obama Wants To Control The Banks," The Wall Street Journal, 4/4/09)
4"You never want a serious crisis to go to waste...This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before." (Gerald F. Seib, "In Crisis, Opportunity For Obama," The Wall Street Journal, 11/21/08)
5"I think any time you have severe economic conditions there is always an element of disaffection that can mutate into something that's unhealthy," (David Axelrod, "Face the Nation" 4/19/09)
OK, well I don't want to turn this into something with the length of a thesis paper, so I'm just going to pick a couple of these to address. Just want to make it clear that just because I am not specifically commenting on it does not mean that I am conceding it as a valid criticism of Obama.
So, first of all, here's some irony for you. Following up the statement "Barack Obama called America 'arrogant'" with "I'm sure the French loved it." That is precisely the type of arrogance he was talking about. And it wasn't a slam on America; if anything it was a slam on the Bush administration. The quote comes from this BBC article and the full quote is "He said the US had been 'arrogant' and 'dismissive' towards its allies, while there was "insidious" anti-Americanism in Europe. He said these attitudes had to change." This is classic diplomacy. You can't go to Europe and say "this anti-americanism needs to stop" - that would be arrogant - you need to say "we've both made mistakes and we need to start over again."
Next, I have a real problem with the line that he was " a candidate who boasted that his election would be remembered as 'the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal'." This is an utterly ridiculous distortion. You can read the transcript of the speech that it was taken from here , but here is the full quote: "The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals."
From a simple scorecard standpoint, the words "I" or "me" appear 4 times in the above; the words "we" and "our" appear 8. This strikes me as a call to action for all Americans, not an "I am the One that can make it happen."
Apart from that, it's the general tone of the e-mail that bothers me, but more on that later.
Here is e-mail #2 (From Michael Steele; Subject: Your Weekly Trunk):
Issue 7 April 21, 2009
Welcome to The Weekly Trunk -- The Republican National Committee's new weekly email update on all the latest news and political happenings. The goal of The Weekly Trunk is to inform and arm you with the facts you need to spread our conservative message and refute the misstatements of the Democrats.
This week's issue features...
More Afraid of U.S. Veterans than Muslim Terrorists?
In the topsy-turvy Obama Department of Homeland Security, real terrorists sponsor "man-caused disasters" and our own valiant veterans are the threat. (Jonah Goldberg, "(Right) Winging It at the DHS: What's the Real Threat to Our Country?" National Review Online, 4/17/09)
What's Your Opinion? Do you believe with the Obama Administration that our military veterans should be labeled as "terrorists?" View Chairman Steele's video on this topic. We want to hear from you. Post a video on the RNC's Facebook page today and let your voice be heard.
Tell It Like It Is, Governors
Republican Governors Haley Barbour and Mark Sanford shed some light on the hyper-partisan policies of the Obama Democrats. (Harry Enten & Jade Taenzler, "GOP Govs Hammer Obama," MSNBC, 4/16/09)
The Never Ending Campaign
Perhaps he agrees that he was a much better presidential candidate than he is a president -- because his campaign is still running. (Kenneth P. Vogel, "Obama Campaign Still Funds Operations," Politico, 4/15/09)
Eco-Madness
Despite mounting evidence that the world is actually on a cooling trend, Obama's green zealots push forward their plan to cripple our economy with unnecessary environmental regulations. (Tom LoBianco, "EPA Ups Pressure for Climate Change Action; 'Endangerment Finding' Seen as Step Toward Regulation," The Washington Times, 4/17/09)
What Will It Be Next Week, Governor Sebelius?
Last week it was tax evasion for President Obama's health secretary nominee, Kansas Democrat Governor Kathleen Sebelius. This week, it's an "oversight" in reporting political donations from an abortionist. ("Sebelius Lowballed Donations From Abortion Doc: She Got About $35,000, Nearly Three Times the $12,450 She Had Reported," Associated Press/MSNBC, 4/13/09)
The Democrats' False Diagnosis
Democrats are comparing apples to oranges when it comes to debating private vs. public health care. (Kerry N. Weems & Benjamin E. Sasse, "Is Government Health Insurance Cheap? The False Comparison Between the Costs of Public and Private Medical Plans," The Wall Street Journal, 4/14/09)
So It's OK Now, Is It?
Barack Obama pursues PR tactics for which President Bush was derided. (Jim Treacher, "Staged Military Photo Ops Suddenly Awesome," Hot Air, 4/14/09)
Card Check Reality Check?
With Democrats now in power, are unions learning how very bad their plan to take away workers' right to a secret ballot vote on unionization looks? (Michael Barone, "Unions Can't Dictate an Increase in Power," The Detroit News, 4/15/09)
Department of Propaganda?
Former L.A. Times columnist Rosa Brooks wants government funding for "independent" media. How independent would government-funded media likely be? ("Obama Appointee Suggests Radical Plan for Newspaper Bailout," FOXNews.com, 4/16/09)
New Best Friends Forever?
Newt Gingrich comments on Barack Obama's chumminess with Venezuelan Marxist strongman Hugo Chavez. ("Gingrich Raps Obama on Chavez Summit Greeting," The Associated Press, 4/20/09)
Blame America First, Last & Always...
Barack Obama follows up the tactic of his Attorney General, Eric Holder, and falsely blames America for Mexico's problems with firearms violence. (Editorial, "Obama's Gun Lies," The Washington Times, 4/20/09)
A Lack of Intelligence
Former Attorney General Mukasey and former CIA Director Hayden explain the negative impact of the Obama Administration's handling of intelligence gathering. (Michael Hayden & Michael B. Mukasey, "The President Ties His Own Hands on Terror: The Point of Interrogation is Intelligence, Not Confession," The Wall Street Journal, 4/17/09)
Check out this definitive list of Vice President Joe Biden's long and impressive history of gaffess (Biden's List of Political Blunders," FOXNews.com, 4/17/09)
Again, just gonna pick out a few to highlight.
Firstly, the U.S. Veterans vs. Muslim terrorists comment. Come on? Really? If we're now just making things up that neither Obama or his administration ever said, here's some suggestions for next week's e-mail: "Obama denies gravity: says we can all fly if we just believe", "Obama to the uninsured: 'Hurry up and die already'", "Obama comes out against children, thinks all babies should be eaten at birth." The link that the RNC provides is to an article in the National Review which is a criticism of this report. Since I'm sure you are sick of clicking on links by now, I'll summarize. The report says that right-wing extremist groups (and defines these as mainly white supremacist and violent antigovernment groups) may be using the election of the first black president as well as the current economic downturn as recruiting tools. It then goes on to say that one of the groups that they think will be targeted will be "disgruntled U.S. veterans." At no point does the report come even remotely close to saying that this danger is even in the same league as foreign terrorists. This is just a complete fabrication. But I do have to give the National Review article credit for its dissent. I mean, it's not like any disgruntled war vet has ever joined an anti-government group and then committed an act of terrorism in the U.S. I mean, apart from this guy.
Secondly (and you knew it was coming), is the "Eco-Madness" paragraph. Well, at least now I have some clarification. I have always believed that most Republicans did not believe in climate change and were merely paying the issue lip service, and now I have proof. The link the RNC provides mentions absolutely nothing about this alleged "cooling trend." Presumably, it comes from this article by George Will. Let's be clear. I love George Will. Absolutely adore him. He's definitely my favorite political pundit and he's probably in my top-10 list of people I'd most like to meet. But he is just dead wrong on this issue. Nate Silver at fivethiryeight.com does a great job of taking Will to task on this issue here. Not gonna say anymore about it now because my views on this subject have been well chronicled on this blog.
So this brings me to my final point, which is a statement on the tone of both of these e-mails. Apart from providing completion, my ulterior motive in presenting the complete texts of both e-mails was to highlight something about them. Or, more accurately, to highlight something that is not present. And that is an idea. Not one single idea of what the Republicans want to do. Not one single piece of legislation that they are trying to get through which they are urging us to call up our local Congressman and support. Not even a vision of what they believe are the major legislative challenges. Well, that's not quite true. They state one objective quite clearly: "the RNC is working hard to hold back the Obama Democrats' damaging, arrogant power grab." There it is in plain english; they are the party of "no". Their objective is not to "provide a constructive opposition and support the conservative values of our constituency" it's just "to hold back the Obama Democrats." This infuriates me because I do not like unchecked power. I desperately want a sane, rational counter-point to the Democratic party. Congressional Democrats will (and have) put ridiculously wasteful spending and protectionist measures into bills. I want a conservative opposition that is willing to compromise so that we get bills which give the best chance of having a positive impact on the U.S. But this is following the Rush playbook: rant and rave against everything they do; hope it fails; then get back into power in the ensuing backlash. That might be good politics, but it's horrible governing. In the short-term it isolates those in the middle while at the same time whips up your base into a frenzy. When instead of saying "we don't agree with this policy and here's why" you say "this policy is just another example of Obama trying make America a weak, dependent, socialist state" it is not surprising that people start getting pushed towards extremism. Maybe I was just naive, but I actually expected more from the Republicans. It makes me angry, but more than anything it just saddens me. I think my party is officially dead.
And just in case you're not completely sick of reading political e-mails, as a counterpoint I present the text of the e-mail I received from the Obama administration (also soliciting money from me) last week (From David Plouffe; Subject: Calls For Failure):
John --
It makes you wonder whether they see the same thing we do.
Advocates for the status quo are calling for President Obama to fail while millions of families struggle. They're playing the same old political games and offering the same failed policies at a time of crisis.
In the coming days, opponents will do everything they can to destroy the President's proposed budget, a bold plan to help fix our broken economy and healthcare system and finally make energy and education the priority we all know they must be.
The change we need won't come without a fight -- no meaningful change ever does. Just like in the campaign, Barack Obama can't win without you by his side. Town by town, block by block, this grassroots movement is organizing and uniting Americans behind the President's plan.
But to finish what we started, we need resources.
Will you join the fight? Before Monday, April 13th, make a donation of $25 or more to help President Obama turn this country around.
We know that Washington won't change overnight. It'll take time, commitment, and money, but this grassroots movement can make change a reality -- affordable health care, a clean energy economy, and quality education for all. We know we are asking a lot from you -- but the stakes couldn't be higher.
It's why we worked so hard to elect President Obama, and he's counting on us to follow through. Today, you can make a difference.
Jo Ann from Charlotte, NC, has joined thousands of other supporters this week to support this movement and reject the same old politics:
I am a sixty-two year old woman on disability. I followed the election closely and did what I could to get Obama elected. Since he was inaugurated, I have watched in awe to see how much has already been accomplished. I live in Charlotte, NC where the unemployment rates are double digits and going up. My youngest son was out of work for 8 months because the company he worked for went out of business. So many workers and families are losing jobs and homes. There's so much more to be done, but this budget has to be passed and the programs have to be put into practice before things start to recover. That's why I support President Obama and his plans.
Americans like Jo Ann deserve better than the kind of divisive politics we've seen year after year. They deserve a truthful debate about real issues and a budget that will turn this economy around so that they can turn their lives around.
We need to seize this crucial moment to help pass this budget and invest in the one thing that can make President Obama's promises of change a reality -- the movement you built.
Before the Monday deadline, strengthen this movement. Make a donation of $25 or more today:
https://donate.barackobama.com/fightattacks
Thank you for all that you do,
David Plouffe
Friday, April 03, 2009
Fiscal Inferno Revisited
Time again, I think, to revisit one of my favorit topics: the national debt. And you know what that means: more graphs!
As has probably been evident over the past couple months, something has been increasingly bothering me. It's the rebirth of fiscal conservatism and rise of the deficit hawks in the Republican party after what seems like 8 years of silence on the issue. This is a big issue for me because it is one of the main things that drew me into the Republican party back in the mid-90s. I saw myself then, as I do now, as being aligned conservatively on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. The idea of limited government, free markets, and a balanced budget has always struck me as the right way to run a government.
This might seem to be at odds with my recent political leanings. After all, I supported Obama (who certainly wants to increase the size of government) as well as the stimulus plan and budget (which will certainly increase the national debt). But it isn't that I stopped believing in my core values: I just stopped believing the Republicans.
So I tried to take a step back and look at the issue objectively. Have I allowed the Bush years to unfairly bias me against Republicans or am I justified in my skepticism? Are Republican administrations really better at handling the debt?
I once again visited the US Treasury and Bureau of Economic Analysis to get my data. I took the annual GDP and national debt numbers over the last 50 years and expressed debt as a percent of GDP. I then calculated the difference year over year. As a technical note, since all debt figures were given in that current year's dollars I had to use that year's current dollars for GDP as well (i.e. I didn't use "Real" GDP or chained-2000 dollars, as most GDP figures use). You can check out the results in the following graph (and I've also attached all my data to the bottom of the post):
So what does this tell us? Well, the 0 line represents no change to debt as a percentage of GDP so as an oversimplification anything below the 0 line is "good" and everything above it is "bad". One thing that is clear is that as a country we did a pretty good job of fiscal restraint from ~1959-1974 and a generally lousy job since then. In the last 50 years we have managed to reduce the debt (as a % of GDP) 25 times while increasing it 25. Unfortunately, 19 of those 25 occurred from 1959-1981, which means we've only managed it 6 times in the last 28 years.
But that's not the question I set about to answer. The question is how do Democratic administrations compare to Republicans in handling the debt? Here's a break-down of the administrations that have managed to reduce the debt:
Republicans
Eisenhower (2)
Nixon (5)
Nixon/Ford (1)
Reagan (1)
GW Bush (1)
Democrats
Kennedy (3)
Carter (2)
Johnson (5)
Clinton (5)
So the score comes out 10 for Republican presidents and 15 for Democrats. That's surprising in and of itself, but it's even moreso when you consider that Republicans have been in the Oval Office one and half times more than Democrats over the last 50 years (30 years to 20).
Obviously, all of this is a gross over-simplification. The President is not a dictator and the behavior of Congress certainly plays more than a minor role in determining this. There's a good argument to be made that Clinton's 5 years are at least partially the work of the Gingrich Republicans in Congress, and that the almost complete lack of reduction during the Reagan years is at least partially attributable to a Democratic congress. The George W years though, where Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and produced 1 year of debt reduction, are hard to ignore. Especially since they are the most recent.
The numbers bear out that, for whatever reason, Republican administrations simply do not do a better job of handling deficits than Democratic ones, and there's in fact a pretty good argument that they are worse at it.
In the end I guess what I am saying is that even though I believe in fiscal restraint, when given the choice between a party that tells me they are going to spend a lot of money on government and then does it and a party who tells me they won't spend a lot of money and then does anyway, give me the party that is more honest. Republicans have had a great scam going on the last 30 years. They say "government doesn't work" and then they create more government and when it fails they say "See? Told you." Maybe the Democrats don't have any better ideas but at least I can believe them when they say "we're going to create more government and spend more." It does pain me that those two options seem to be my only choices.
Bottom line is that if Republicans ever regain power and actually follow through on their fiscally conservative rhetoric, I'll be happy to jump on board again with them. Until that day, though, consider me an Independent.
Debt and GDP data
As has probably been evident over the past couple months, something has been increasingly bothering me. It's the rebirth of fiscal conservatism and rise of the deficit hawks in the Republican party after what seems like 8 years of silence on the issue. This is a big issue for me because it is one of the main things that drew me into the Republican party back in the mid-90s. I saw myself then, as I do now, as being aligned conservatively on fiscal issues and liberal on social issues. The idea of limited government, free markets, and a balanced budget has always struck me as the right way to run a government.
This might seem to be at odds with my recent political leanings. After all, I supported Obama (who certainly wants to increase the size of government) as well as the stimulus plan and budget (which will certainly increase the national debt). But it isn't that I stopped believing in my core values: I just stopped believing the Republicans.
So I tried to take a step back and look at the issue objectively. Have I allowed the Bush years to unfairly bias me against Republicans or am I justified in my skepticism? Are Republican administrations really better at handling the debt?
I once again visited the US Treasury and Bureau of Economic Analysis to get my data. I took the annual GDP and national debt numbers over the last 50 years and expressed debt as a percent of GDP. I then calculated the difference year over year. As a technical note, since all debt figures were given in that current year's dollars I had to use that year's current dollars for GDP as well (i.e. I didn't use "Real" GDP or chained-2000 dollars, as most GDP figures use). You can check out the results in the following graph (and I've also attached all my data to the bottom of the post):
So what does this tell us? Well, the 0 line represents no change to debt as a percentage of GDP so as an oversimplification anything below the 0 line is "good" and everything above it is "bad". One thing that is clear is that as a country we did a pretty good job of fiscal restraint from ~1959-1974 and a generally lousy job since then. In the last 50 years we have managed to reduce the debt (as a % of GDP) 25 times while increasing it 25. Unfortunately, 19 of those 25 occurred from 1959-1981, which means we've only managed it 6 times in the last 28 years.
But that's not the question I set about to answer. The question is how do Democratic administrations compare to Republicans in handling the debt? Here's a break-down of the administrations that have managed to reduce the debt:
Republicans
Eisenhower (2)
Nixon (5)
Nixon/Ford (1)
Reagan (1)
GW Bush (1)
Democrats
Kennedy (3)
Carter (2)
Johnson (5)
Clinton (5)
So the score comes out 10 for Republican presidents and 15 for Democrats. That's surprising in and of itself, but it's even moreso when you consider that Republicans have been in the Oval Office one and half times more than Democrats over the last 50 years (30 years to 20).
Obviously, all of this is a gross over-simplification. The President is not a dictator and the behavior of Congress certainly plays more than a minor role in determining this. There's a good argument to be made that Clinton's 5 years are at least partially the work of the Gingrich Republicans in Congress, and that the almost complete lack of reduction during the Reagan years is at least partially attributable to a Democratic congress. The George W years though, where Republicans controlled the Presidency and Congress for 6 years and produced 1 year of debt reduction, are hard to ignore. Especially since they are the most recent.
The numbers bear out that, for whatever reason, Republican administrations simply do not do a better job of handling deficits than Democratic ones, and there's in fact a pretty good argument that they are worse at it.
In the end I guess what I am saying is that even though I believe in fiscal restraint, when given the choice between a party that tells me they are going to spend a lot of money on government and then does it and a party who tells me they won't spend a lot of money and then does anyway, give me the party that is more honest. Republicans have had a great scam going on the last 30 years. They say "government doesn't work" and then they create more government and when it fails they say "See? Told you." Maybe the Democrats don't have any better ideas but at least I can believe them when they say "we're going to create more government and spend more." It does pain me that those two options seem to be my only choices.
Bottom line is that if Republicans ever regain power and actually follow through on their fiscally conservative rhetoric, I'll be happy to jump on board again with them. Until that day, though, consider me an Independent.
Debt and GDP data
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
When Bad News is Good
So the stock market has largely been going up the last couple of weeks. That is of course good but is not of and by itself all that interesting. What is interesting is why it's been going up. At first blush, most of the headlines talk about stocks rising higher on good economic news. But when you read a little closer, you realize that it's not good news at all; it's bad news that's not as bad as it was expected to be. A sample just from today. Right now the Dow is up 100 points and the headline on Yahoo! Finance reads "Wall Street Pares Losses After Better-Than-Expected Economic Data." So what is this "better-than-expected" data? Pending home sales rebounded in March from a record low in February (in other words, March is the 2nd worst month on record), an index of manufacturing activity contracted in March but by a little less than expected, and construction spending dropped in February for the fifth straight month but at a slower pace than in January. So by and large nothing is getting better; it's just getting worse more slowly.
I'm not at all trying to dismiss the positive gains that the market has made, nor am I trying to say that people shouldn't be feeling a little better about the economy in general. The name of the game during a recession is trying to find a floor, and the slowing of the rate of deterioration is definitely a sign that we could be nearing that floor soon. But just a cursory glance at historical economic data will show you that both recessions and expansions are wrought with false troughs and peaks. I just find it a bit ironic that data which would ordinarily be seen as very bad news in this context is now seen as a reason for optimism. It's kind of like hearing that a school burned down and everyone inside died, and then throwing a party when you find out that one kid actually made it out alive.
In other news, we are exactly 5 days away from the Cubs opener. I am hoping to put together my annual Cubs preview over the weekend. I know that you all can't wait.
I'm not at all trying to dismiss the positive gains that the market has made, nor am I trying to say that people shouldn't be feeling a little better about the economy in general. The name of the game during a recession is trying to find a floor, and the slowing of the rate of deterioration is definitely a sign that we could be nearing that floor soon. But just a cursory glance at historical economic data will show you that both recessions and expansions are wrought with false troughs and peaks. I just find it a bit ironic that data which would ordinarily be seen as very bad news in this context is now seen as a reason for optimism. It's kind of like hearing that a school burned down and everyone inside died, and then throwing a party when you find out that one kid actually made it out alive.
In other news, we are exactly 5 days away from the Cubs opener. I am hoping to put together my annual Cubs preview over the weekend. I know that you all can't wait.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
