About Me

Name: flagwaver
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Do What You Know

I suppose that when a person doesn't know what to do, he naturally goes back to doing what he knows. And in the case of President Obama, all he really knows how to do is campaign; give stump speeches, work a crowd, gaze lovingly into his teleprompter, and talk about things.
 
Because talking about things is easy; doing things, not so much.
 
So we are to be treated to another thrilling Obamawood spectacle that is supposed to refocus us on the urgency of healthcare/ health insurance reform. The president is going to the Congress in a joint session, stand in front of them and the American people via television, and give another one of his faux Stae of the Union addresses, all in the hope that his very words and presence will turn the debate back in his favor. Seeking to reverse the beatings he has taken on this issue over the past two or three months, President Obama is going back to what he knows.
 
He knows how to speak to crowds of adoring supporters, how to get them into an emotional frenzy, shouting "Yes We Can!" at the top of their lungs, and how to mesmerize a willing and pliant media. Because as Chris Mathews famously said, the media is not so much covering this president as it is seeking ways to help him. So Obama will go before his adoring crowd of minions, make some high sounding speech that is short on specifics, and the media will treat it like it as important as Moses bringing the Ten Commandments from Mt. Sinai. We will have days, maybe even a week, of fawning coverage of the president's masterful speech and how it has shored up his base and his congressional allies to get a healthcare bill on his desk by the end of the year. That is all to be expected, but in the end it won't matter; the proverbial needle on healthcare will not be moved by one speech, no matter how eloquent or grandiose. Because the people want more than pretty words; they want honesty and action. And they won't be getting it from this president any time soon.
 
President Obama, after all, has no experience or inclination to actually lead on this issue. His idea of leadership is best summed up thus: identify a problem, make a speech about it, and declared the problem solved. It worked when he threw Trinity UCC, Jeremiah Wright, and his own granny under his campaign bus; it worked when he dismissed his relationship with Bill Ayers as that of working with some guy who just happens to live in the neighborhood, and it worked when he made his wife off limits during the campaign, even tough she was giving nearly as many stump speeches as he was (as a matter of fact she spoke here at my college, Winston-Salem Sate University during the campaign).
 
What Obama and his handlers don't seem to grasp, is that now he has no cover for when he screws the pooch and campaign style rehetoric doesn't keep the people assuaged anymore. More and more the people are adopting what an attitude best summed up by something my beloved Papa Sang used to tell me, "Boy, you can SHOW me better than you can TELL me!" In a nutshell it means, words are just words but actions tell the truth. And on this issue, Obama doesn't have any actions to show for all his words. Because he has not been involved there are a myriad of competing bills floating around the halls of Congress. Some insist on a public option, while some reject it as a non-starter; some favor end of lfe counseling sessions every five years for seniors of a certain age, while another makes no mention of it. There is no consistency or unity, even among the Democrats, on what a healthcare bill will eventually look like coming out of the various House committees that are busily crafting their own versions of healthcare reform.
 
So when Obama stands before the assmbled Congress, cocks his head to one side and squints as if he is hearing the very voice of God in his ear, and begins to speechify about the need to support "the healthcare bill" it won't work. It may be a spectacle, but it will not win over the facets of the American community that it needs to in order to succeed. Obama will be lauded as Solomonic in his precious wisdom, and hailed as an orator on par with Daniel Webster by his media lapdogs...but the effor will fail.
 
Because by going back to what he knows, he will simply reinforce in the eyes of America just what he doesn't know. By constantly falling back on campaign style events and speeches, Obama shows that he knows well how to campaign for office; but by constsantly reverting to campaign mode, he points out the sad fact that he cannot fulfill the twin burdens of being president.
 
Governing and leadership.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (10) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Few Quick Thoughts

Do any of you watch "Morning Joe" on MSNBC? I usually don't but I switched over this morning from "Fox & Friends" (who wants to watch another story about that danged dog protecting its mother anyway?), and I saw Bob Shrum on there swearing that Nancy Pelosi had been consistent in her statements about the CIA lying to her and Congress. Is it just me, or is the Democratic Party filled with professional liars, who think we are too stupid to know when we're being lied to?
 
Since Obama finally gave his much discussed commencement address at Notre Dame, I am going to put my two cents into the discussion. The media has done its level best to turn this into a situation where those protesting Obama's speech are trying to shut him up, when that is not the case at all. This is all about ND ignoring the edicts of the Church and honoring a man with degree who stands diametrically opposed to the Church's position on abortion. The President, as well as any other speaker chosen by the university has every right to speak, and no one was objecting to that. The objection was to the university putting the wishes of the administration for a speech by the Pope of Hope over the words of the actual Pope of Rome, who is supposedly in charge of the Church.
 
Can someone give me a quick synopsis of what 'cap-and-trade' is? I hear about it, and I think I have something of a handle on it but can someone give me a layman's version if it? I am having a terrible time wrapping my head around it all, so anything that helos me clear it up will be greatly appreciated.
 
Finally, I know that this may be pretty unpopular, but does the $20 million bail amaount for accused murderer Drew Peterson bother anyone but me? Our Constitution says, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed...", yet the court in Peterson's case found a $20 million bail to be reasonable. Now, I understand that bail should be imposed, but $20 million for a guy who has never had that type of income? And it seems to me that he isn't being held for the single crime that he has been charged with, but for every other crime he is alleged to have committed. And if our system is based on a presumption of innocence, where the state is tasked with proving guilt, then does not the imposition of such a huge bail amount not send a clear signal to the community and prospective jurors that Peterson is dangerous and is to be judged guilty of some crime? I'm sorry, but no matter what the public mood is, no one should be held out as guilty before trial and astronomically high bail amounts do just that!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

See, What Had Happened Was...

Watching Nancy Pelosi squirm on the dais at her press conference yesterday was absolutely priceless! She stumbled, she stuttered, she rambled, she sounded like a person going through the early onset of dementia, and she proved herself to be a total and complete liar. I mean, she was working on what...her fifth version of this story? First she wasn't briefed, then she was but couldn't so anything about, then she just heard about the briefing, then she recieved a second hand account of the briefing, and now she claims that she could not do anything about any harsh interrogation techniques short of electing Obama. That, my friends, is Democratic leadership at it's very best!!!
 
But what is even richer than watching Pelosi stumble around trying to find the place in her statement that spells out what she heard about waterboarding, was listening to Democrat apologists trying to blame this on everyone but Madame Pelosi. The Pelosi camp is putting out statements from other Democrats that claim the CIA misled them in the past to burnish her claims of the CIA having lied to her (at one of those briefings she didn't attend, I suppose) and then the apologists have gone to their ace-in-the-hole argument...the Republicans set her up!
 
Now this is the same GOP that couldn't get Colin Powell to endorse or vote for his wet dream GOP candidate in 2008, that has lost more races than Kyle Petty, and that was just declared DOA in every mainstream media outlet for the last two months or so...right? This is the same GOP that endorses Charlie "Lil' Specter" Crist in the Florida senatorial race, thinks that John McCain is a statesman, and that is working overtime to take the Dems advice to move left on order to survive. And this group of nincompoops is alleged to have dreamed up a scheme to entrap Nancy Pelosi...in her own words, no less...to turn the heat away from themselves? Are we really supposed to believe that the GOP leadership is that smart or effective? I think not!
 
The problem that Madame Speaker is having is that she has been caught in her own net and her own web of lies and misstatements. And she has accused the CIA of being a criminal organization that has broken the law by lying to Congress, even though not even other Democrats are backing up her claim. The GOP has been handed, gift wrapped with a bow, a way to beat the living hell out of the Democrats and Madame Speaker on the issue of national security and they seem inclined to do it, for a change. Kit Bond has been all over the place, as well as Pete Hoekstra endorsing the idea of some type of hearing or truth commission that would have members of Congress being called as witnessess as to what the CIA had to say about waterboarding in those briefings...and Madame Speaker would be a star witness in the proceedings. And wouldn't that be delicious...watching Madame Speaker have to take an oath and tell the real truth about what she knew and when she knew it!
 
And it was fun to see the media on the attack against a Democrat for a change, I must admit. It was obvious that Madame Speaker was not getting any breaks from the assembled press and she literally fled the scene when the questioning got tough! Suddenly the media remembered what it is there for; to hold the politically powerful accountable for their words and deeds. And their questions of Madame Pelosi were well thought out and were backed up with great follow up questions...which is why Madame Speaker felt the need to get the hell outta Dodge!
 
Madame Speaker has just found out what it's like to be caught up in your own lies, and it's not fun at all. If she would have just been honest...or kept her mouth shut...she would have been just fine. But you can bet your bottom dollar that the CIA is not going to be accused of lying to Congress and not respond, and when they start to fire back the heat is going to ratchet up even higher on Madame Speaker. And it is going to be a sight to see Madame Speaker trying to refute the black and white evidence of her knowledge of the interrogation techniques that find their way into the press, especially if that performance yesterday was how she handles pressure!
 
The people of California must be so proud...NOT!!!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (15) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Time Is Now

By this point everyone and his brother is talking about the Specter switch and what it means to the GOP and the future of the Party. The media has gone to the usual suspects, Snowe, Collins, and Graham to tell them what they want to hear about the demise of the GOP. They are saying that the GOP is not 'big-tent' enough; that it is being dominated by conservatives; that 'moderates' are being forced out, and that ideological purity is a hinderance to electoral success.
 
But a couple of things strike me when listenening to the whiners out there braying about the direction of the GOP, and giving their prescriptions on how to change the Party going forward. First, what GOP have they been a member of since 1989? When Ronlad Reagan left office, the 'moderates' in the Party officially took control of the apparatus again, and have held power ever since! Look at the people who have served as President or had the GOP nomination since Reagan left the scene: George H.W. Bush, Robert Dole, George W. Bush, and John McCain. Not a conservative among them, including the alleged 'compassionate conservative' himself, G.W. Bush. So where is this group of conservative bully-boys the 'moderates' are so afraid of? Look at the leaders we have had to deal with in the Congress, and point out the conservative to me....I'll wait, and if you can find me one strong conservative voice that the GOP congressional power brokers didn't try to silence, please add the name in the comments section.
 
Second, why is striving for a consistent ideology such a bad thing? To be totally honest, I respect the Democrats at this point a whole hell of a lot more than I do the GOP because if there is one thing the Democrats do well it is enforce the Party ideology among its members. Very rarely are you going to see a prominent Democrat doing the types of things that John McCain spent 8 years doing to his Party and his president and not pay a serious price for it. Joe Lieberman, Independent from Connecticut is exhibit one on this issue; when Lieberman decided that he was going to buck the Party and side with President Bush on the Iraq War, the Democrats summarily drummed his butt right out of the Party, and were threatening to strip him of his place on the committees he served on. Now I am not saying that such draconian practices are the way to go, but at least the Democrats let it be known that there are times when Party unity is a must, and if you break that unity you will be dealt with. The GOP NEVER does things like that, which is why McCain can go all 'maverick' because he got his tender feelings hurt in 2000, Graham can be McCain's loyal lapdog, and Snow/Collins can basically caucus with the Democrats on every issue...and never hear a discouraging word about it!
 
In all honesty, the Specter defection now gives the GOP the chance to redefine the Party and its goals, and to marginalize the members who spend all their time voting as Democrats and running as Republicans. If that means that Snowe and Collins feel the need to switch parties, then fine...I'll even fly to DC to hold the door open as they leave, if they want me to. But this should be the time for us to actually move the Party back to the right and fulfill the talk of a right-wing takeover of the Party. And now is a time for conservative Party leadership to emerge and let it be known that disloyalty and disunity are no longer going to be accepted practices within the GOP; either stand together or stand alone. Finally, it is time for conservative voters to let their representatives know that we the people are no longer willing to tolerate the usual practice of rewarding the people who turn their backs on us after garnering our votes by returning them to office.
 
And one last thing: I know that many have been uninspired by Michael Steele, but I personally loved his response to the news that Specter had officially changed parties. He immediately called it for what it was, simple personal political preservation and dispelled the notion that Specter was trying to create of it being some noble decision, driven by personal conviction. Specter showed himself for what he truly was yetserday, and Harry Reid revealed what a turncoat he has been for the last three years, and Mr. Steele called him on it publicly. For that he gets a big HURRAH!!! from me! 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Real Outrage of AIG

Everyone seems to be burning with outrage over the bonuses paid to the AIG employees, per their signed contracts with the company. The White House has feigned outrage over the situation, the President is pulling a Sgt. Schultz, "I saw nothink!", and Sen. Charles Grassley is running around telling people who got bonuses to kill themselves. Republicans and Democrats alike are trying to ride the populist wave of anger at the payment of these bonuses to score political points against their opponents, and all are taking part in what Michelle Malkin so expertly described as the "kabuki theatre" of outrage.
 
But what has me outraged is not the bonuses, because I cannot care less how much these people make; what bothers me is the rhetoric emanating from the halls of Congress. We have Sen. Chuck Schumer telling us that he wants to tax the bonuses up to 100%, a group of Congress members threatening to pass legislation to allow it, and one idiot on the Greta Van Susteren show saying that she thinks the Congress can legally hold the AIG employees to a retroactive law.
 
Article One, Section Nine, Clause Three says: No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. Article One, Section Nine, Clause Four states: No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. In other words, the Congress cannot pass laws that single out individuals or groups and cannot order taxes to be levied against individuals. These "guardians of the realm" are trying to do something that is obviously illegal and unconstitutional, and too few people are even batting an eye over it. Everyone is so busy reveling in their righteous anger at the "greedy" executives that they are ignoring a serious threat to their freedoms.
 
If the government can, in broad daylight no less, threaten to abrogate the Constitution in this manner, and if they can attempt to effectively blackmail the CEO of AIG to turn over the names of the recipients to Barney Frank, what does that bode for the rest of us? What will they do when no one is watching, if they will try this in front of the cameras? This behavior is the real outrage of the AIG scandal, and it should scare you to death.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (21) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »