In an article titled "Why do people often vote against their own interests?" the author (a Brit) opines, "There is nothing voters hate more than having things explained to them as though they were idiots." He then proceeds to explain to his readers why American voters are idiots for choosing not to listen to "liberal elitists" even though they clearly know what is best for the country. To clearly illustrate his point he quotes two liberal elitists...
This site was linked to this evening by the Huffington Post.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
A National Embarrassment
So the speech has been over for less than 45-minutes and I'm already being called a hate-monger for not liking it. Listen people, I took my lumps for supporting W for eight long years from people a helluva' lot less informed than me and made it my pledge to never subject someone from the opposing viewpoint to the disgust with which Republicans were treated during the Bush administration. That is why my opinion is informed and measured, so if you're like me and abhorred tonight's speech, maybe these thoughts will help put into words your distaste.
My primary complaint with the speech was that it was woefully un-presidential. Now that requires quantification because there are plenty on the left who would call W's speeches "un-presidential" because he was not as eloquent or skilled in the use of a teleprompter as is Obama. So what then, do I mean by "un-presidential?" Well the best (or worst) example was this:
Apparently CNN has tape of Justice Alito shaking his head and mouthing, "No" as Obama said this and the Justice is right. The Court struck down 2 USC Section 441a. That is the section that prohibits corporate political spending. It left untouched 2 USC Section 441e, which prohibits foreign nationals and corporations from making contributions to political parties and campaigns.
In one sentence the President blatantly misled the American people while slapping the face of a co-equal branch of government; two remarkably un-presidential things to do in a State of the Union. (And to those who will say, "So did Bush!" your response should be, "Does that make it right?")
But that's one example and by all accounts it's inside political baseball. Here is one that's easier to explain:
He sets up a straw man then blows it over with a cheap, partisan line meant only to excite the base while at the same time claiming that it is his desire to bring the parties closer together... So let me get this straight... You hope to gain the Republican's cooperation by insulting them? That might work in Adam Sandler movies or fifth-grade lunch rooms but in the "real world" cooperation is a bit more complicated.
OK - to the issue, what do I mean by a "straw man?" Let's dissect his sentence.
First he claims the republicans want to, "make fewer investments in our people." That's a blatant lie that preys on peoples' ignorance of the differences between the two parties.
At their core, Democrats think that it is the government's job to take the money American citizens and businesses pay in taxes and use that money to fund governmental programs to make peoples' lives better. That's their political philosophy - their definition of an "investment" in the people.
Republicans believe that by keeping taxes low and not spending money on costly social programs, the money that people make by working (contributing to the economy goods and services that people need, want and desire) can be saved by the person who earned it and put to use as that person sees fit - by purchasing goods and services (thereby further stimulating the economy) or using that money for charitable purposes, to fund the kind of programs Democrats would fund through government.
It's a simple disagreement in philosophy - one that has existed for generations. The Republicans define an investment in the people as a tax cut the Democrats by a spending increase, either way they hope to achieve the same goal!
The President goes on to claim that Republicans want to "maintain the status quo on health care." If you believe that, you're not paying attention. Republicans want to reform health care as much as Democrats do - so why haven't you heard about an opposing Republican plan? The simple answer - the media! Why would they cover a story about the republicans talking about health care reform when the Democrats shut them out of the process from the beginning. It's a documented fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid crafted this health care legislation without republican input. Their plan was simple - create a bill that they can pass with their super majority - whip all their own people into line (hence the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback) and if a few Republicans want to jump on-board, great!
The truth is the Republicans have ideas on how to reform health care - the two leading calls for reform are addressing the Tort issue and opening up insurance for purchase across state lines, neither of which are even mentioned in the bill as it now exists.
In the end this was a campaign speech, delivered to pander to a flagging base. It was truly disappointing to hear this from a person who promised an "end to politics as we know it." It seems as though he's hell-bent on delivering more of the same. That is why YOUR voice is important - make it heard and don't let the opposition silence you simply because you disagree.
My primary complaint with the speech was that it was woefully un-presidential. Now that requires quantification because there are plenty on the left who would call W's speeches "un-presidential" because he was not as eloquent or skilled in the use of a teleprompter as is Obama. So what then, do I mean by "un-presidential?" Well the best (or worst) example was this:
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.
Apparently CNN has tape of Justice Alito shaking his head and mouthing, "No" as Obama said this and the Justice is right. The Court struck down 2 USC Section 441a. That is the section that prohibits corporate political spending. It left untouched 2 USC Section 441e, which prohibits foreign nationals and corporations from making contributions to political parties and campaigns.
In one sentence the President blatantly misled the American people while slapping the face of a co-equal branch of government; two remarkably un-presidential things to do in a State of the Union. (And to those who will say, "So did Bush!" your response should be, "Does that make it right?")
But that's one example and by all accounts it's inside political baseball. Here is one that's easier to explain:
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument, that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts, including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away.
The problem is, that's what we did for eight years.
He sets up a straw man then blows it over with a cheap, partisan line meant only to excite the base while at the same time claiming that it is his desire to bring the parties closer together... So let me get this straight... You hope to gain the Republican's cooperation by insulting them? That might work in Adam Sandler movies or fifth-grade lunch rooms but in the "real world" cooperation is a bit more complicated.
OK - to the issue, what do I mean by a "straw man?" Let's dissect his sentence.
First he claims the republicans want to, "make fewer investments in our people." That's a blatant lie that preys on peoples' ignorance of the differences between the two parties.
At their core, Democrats think that it is the government's job to take the money American citizens and businesses pay in taxes and use that money to fund governmental programs to make peoples' lives better. That's their political philosophy - their definition of an "investment" in the people.
Republicans believe that by keeping taxes low and not spending money on costly social programs, the money that people make by working (contributing to the economy goods and services that people need, want and desire) can be saved by the person who earned it and put to use as that person sees fit - by purchasing goods and services (thereby further stimulating the economy) or using that money for charitable purposes, to fund the kind of programs Democrats would fund through government.
It's a simple disagreement in philosophy - one that has existed for generations. The Republicans define an investment in the people as a tax cut the Democrats by a spending increase, either way they hope to achieve the same goal!
The President goes on to claim that Republicans want to "maintain the status quo on health care." If you believe that, you're not paying attention. Republicans want to reform health care as much as Democrats do - so why haven't you heard about an opposing Republican plan? The simple answer - the media! Why would they cover a story about the republicans talking about health care reform when the Democrats shut them out of the process from the beginning. It's a documented fact that Obama, Pelosi and Reid crafted this health care legislation without republican input. Their plan was simple - create a bill that they can pass with their super majority - whip all their own people into line (hence the Louisiana Purchase and the Cornhusker Kickback) and if a few Republicans want to jump on-board, great!
The truth is the Republicans have ideas on how to reform health care - the two leading calls for reform are addressing the Tort issue and opening up insurance for purchase across state lines, neither of which are even mentioned in the bill as it now exists.
In the end this was a campaign speech, delivered to pander to a flagging base. It was truly disappointing to hear this from a person who promised an "end to politics as we know it." It seems as though he's hell-bent on delivering more of the same. That is why YOUR voice is important - make it heard and don't let the opposition silence you simply because you disagree.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
More than one revolution got its start in Massachusetts
In 1962 John F. Kennedy was President, John Glenn became the first American to orbit the Earth, the first WalMart opened in Rogers, Arkansas, John Carson took over as host of the Tonight Show and Ted Kennedy was elected United States Senator from the state of Massachusetts.
In 2008 President Obama carried the state of Massachusetts by 800,000 votes, a 26-point margin of victory, 62% to 36%. According to Gallup's exit polling in 2008, independents, which made up 40% of the electorate, favored the Democratic candidate by 17 points, 57% to 40%. During the Brown/Coakley race, Rasmussen's last poll before the one that counts had independents favoring the Republican by 48 points, 71% to 23%.
Had you told any reasonable political analyst, had you told anyone with a modicum of political knowledge that a Republican had a chance to win the Senate seat that for forty-seven years had been occupied by the "Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy, you would have been laughed out of the room. And yet here we are and it's worth taking a minute to consider how we got here and reflect on the importance of political "independents" in our electoral process.
It is my opinion that President Obama was elected largely by independent and moderate Democrat voters drawn to the candidate's promise of running a transparent, non-partisan government. After six years of some of the most rancorous and mean-spirited political discourse in our nation's modern political history, the American people wanted a change. They wanted a candidate who was willing to reach across the aisle and work with his opposition, taking the "bit from column a, bit from column b" approach to government.
However, once elected Obama took a hard turn to the left. Angrily lecturing his opposition, closing them out of pressing negotiations and pushing an agenda seemingly more intereted in moving this country closer to European socialism than restoring a disenchanted public's confidence in a shaken economy and agressively waging a winning war on Islamic extremism. Many of those who voted for the President, particularly independents, must feel as though they were sold a bill of goods but there was no way to measure that sentiment... until now.
Brown's win tonight proves unequivocally that the United States of America is not interested in a slow march toward socialism and will not suffer disingenuous politicians leading them along said path. The Democrats ignore this message at their own peril.
P.S. - The Big Win tonight is that Obama-care is officially dead. If the Democrats try to use reconcilliation or delay seating Senator Brown in order to pass this bill they will suffer a political backlash the likes of which this nation has never seen and lock themselves out of power for generations.
In 2008 President Obama carried the state of Massachusetts by 800,000 votes, a 26-point margin of victory, 62% to 36%. According to Gallup's exit polling in 2008, independents, which made up 40% of the electorate, favored the Democratic candidate by 17 points, 57% to 40%. During the Brown/Coakley race, Rasmussen's last poll before the one that counts had independents favoring the Republican by 48 points, 71% to 23%.
Had you told any reasonable political analyst, had you told anyone with a modicum of political knowledge that a Republican had a chance to win the Senate seat that for forty-seven years had been occupied by the "Liberal Lion" Ted Kennedy, you would have been laughed out of the room. And yet here we are and it's worth taking a minute to consider how we got here and reflect on the importance of political "independents" in our electoral process.
It is my opinion that President Obama was elected largely by independent and moderate Democrat voters drawn to the candidate's promise of running a transparent, non-partisan government. After six years of some of the most rancorous and mean-spirited political discourse in our nation's modern political history, the American people wanted a change. They wanted a candidate who was willing to reach across the aisle and work with his opposition, taking the "bit from column a, bit from column b" approach to government.
However, once elected Obama took a hard turn to the left. Angrily lecturing his opposition, closing them out of pressing negotiations and pushing an agenda seemingly more intereted in moving this country closer to European socialism than restoring a disenchanted public's confidence in a shaken economy and agressively waging a winning war on Islamic extremism. Many of those who voted for the President, particularly independents, must feel as though they were sold a bill of goods but there was no way to measure that sentiment... until now.
Brown's win tonight proves unequivocally that the United States of America is not interested in a slow march toward socialism and will not suffer disingenuous politicians leading them along said path. The Democrats ignore this message at their own peril.
P.S. - The Big Win tonight is that Obama-care is officially dead. If the Democrats try to use reconcilliation or delay seating Senator Brown in order to pass this bill they will suffer a political backlash the likes of which this nation has never seen and lock themselves out of power for generations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)