Wow! Here it is – Thursday – and I’m still recovering from the Boston surprise! It feels like there are still aftershocks rocking Washington – along with an attendant change in democrat attitude. Suddenly, it’s all “bipartisanship” and “reaching across the aisle” again. What’s happened?
Perhaps the overwhelming message from voters has finally gotten through: “We’re tired of your arrogance; we’re tired of closed-door haggling; we’re tired of the exclusion from the process; we’re sick of the lies. And we want no part of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid forced agenda.”
Witness the speculation regarding possible post-election shenanigans: Some were concerned with an attempt to slow down Brown’s taking his seat if elected. In fact, two weeks ago, Massachusetts’ other senator John Kerry reportedly stated that he would seek to delay Brown’s seating if he won - to allow health care reform to pass. But now, all the players appear to be singing a different tune, including Kerry, who this morning, said that Brown’s confirmation and seating should proceed as quickly as possible. In fact, when Brown visited Kerry’s office this morning, his tone was entirely different. Kerry even went so far as to lecture Brown, telling him: “You have to work across the aisle around here to make things happen”. “The message that the people sent was – ‘Get the peoples’ business done. Do it responsibly, without partisanship’”. “I’m totally in favor of that”. (Now, that’s quite a reversal!)
So, how does this bode for Obamacare and perhaps other pending legislation like Cap and Trade? Apparently, a lot. In yet another bombshell, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now conceded that it isn’t possible to simply pass the Senate bill in the House. Doing so would allow bypassing the rest of the reconciliation process and instead, send it directly to the President’s desk for signature. In effect, she could be acknowledging the fact that she and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are dead in the water. Regarding health care reform, we could very well be back at the starting point. Both sides are probably assessing that possibility right now.
The message from the voters has been delivered. Is Washington finally listening? We’ll see…
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
The Boston Surprise!
What a stunner! Tuesday’s election was just that. Who would have thought that the political course of this nation could have shaken to its very core by a Massachusetts Senatorial election? But it looks like Republican Scott Brown’s convincing victory over Democrat Martha Coakley has had that much of an effect.
The shocker began early in the evening, even before polls closed. Exit polling revealed voters, in a major break with tradition, were close to electing a republican to a Senate seat held for more than 50 years by democrats. After the polls closed, early results indicated a 53-47 split in favor of Brown. As more vote counts continued to come in, the margin remained unchanged and not much later – surprise! Coakley was already on the phone to Brown, conceding the election. In fact, Coakley later gave one of the classiest concession speeches I’ve ever heard. And Brown graciously responded in kind. To all observers, it was an amazing progression of events. Most expected the election to be close and a few were predicting a slim win for Brown, but no one expected it to be as decisive as this.
What are the implications? Democrats no longer have a 60-vote, filibuster-proof, stranglehold majority in the Senate. Their only option now - other than limited use of the 51-vote “nuclear option” to force through certain bills - will be to “reach across the aisle” and actually work with their Republican colleagues, rather than continue excluding them from every step of the process. The era of closed-door, back-room negotiations is over. If democrats want to save their version of health care reform, they’ll need to reconcile and pass it prior to Brown’s being seated. It’ll be interesting to observe how Congress proceeds in this respect.
Moreover, in the lead-up to 2010’s and 2012’s elections, this victory will force Obama to abandon his determined progressive agenda of “change” and make a major course correction toward the center. If he doesn’t, he’ll wind up being a one-term president.
What a difference a night makes!
The shocker began early in the evening, even before polls closed. Exit polling revealed voters, in a major break with tradition, were close to electing a republican to a Senate seat held for more than 50 years by democrats. After the polls closed, early results indicated a 53-47 split in favor of Brown. As more vote counts continued to come in, the margin remained unchanged and not much later – surprise! Coakley was already on the phone to Brown, conceding the election. In fact, Coakley later gave one of the classiest concession speeches I’ve ever heard. And Brown graciously responded in kind. To all observers, it was an amazing progression of events. Most expected the election to be close and a few were predicting a slim win for Brown, but no one expected it to be as decisive as this.
What are the implications? Democrats no longer have a 60-vote, filibuster-proof, stranglehold majority in the Senate. Their only option now - other than limited use of the 51-vote “nuclear option” to force through certain bills - will be to “reach across the aisle” and actually work with their Republican colleagues, rather than continue excluding them from every step of the process. The era of closed-door, back-room negotiations is over. If democrats want to save their version of health care reform, they’ll need to reconcile and pass it prior to Brown’s being seated. It’ll be interesting to observe how Congress proceeds in this respect.
Moreover, in the lead-up to 2010’s and 2012’s elections, this victory will force Obama to abandon his determined progressive agenda of “change” and make a major course correction toward the center. If he doesn’t, he’ll wind up being a one-term president.
What a difference a night makes!
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Glenn Beck: Satan or Saint?
I think it’s safe to say that with the stellar exception of Charles Krauthammer, the Washington Post is a determined bastion of liberal propaganda. This past Sunday, the Sacramento Bee reprinted a hit piece by Post writer Dana Milbank, aimed at FOX News phenomenon Glenn Beck. The article, “Glenn Beck exalted by the masses” makes it clear that the far left believes him to be the antichrist – perhaps even more dangerous than Sarah Palin.
This particular offering is so egregious, it simply begs for a response. Amusing, isn’t it, that so-called “liberals” can’t stand opinion or philosophy that conflicts with their own? Nothing “liberal” about them. That’s why the term “progressive”, might be a better term instead. Rather than argue the merits of an issue and try to persuade, these folks go after the individual. Utilizing ridicule, isolation, outright attack, when all else fails, they resort personal destruction. That’s why progressives are so desperate to silence him. However, it’s no surprise to Beck, who often reviews these slam tactics during his show, reminding the audience that they originate in Sol Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (a how-to manual for leftist agitators).
Dissecting the article, first few paragraphs are devoted to broad-brushed smears. By paragraph 4, Milbank gets down to specifics, insinuating evil connotations over Beck’s discussions. These range from the possibility of “death panels”, “FEMA concentration camps”, etc., to Hitler’s SA-type “civilian national security forces” – most of which are either implied or contained in actual health care reform language, or the latter – specifically called for (for whatever need anyone can imagine), by then-candidate Obama, himself.
Another jab - at Beck’s urging viewers to read “Mein Kamph” - misses, because Milbank flubs Beck's message in the warning: Not learning from the lessons of history condemns one to repeat them. I’d personally recommend the Alinsky book as well. It helps explain the disdainful, condescending attitudes displayed by Washington politicians toward their tea-partying constituents.
Further along, Milbank asks: “Is Glenn Beck America?” As much as this may pain him, I’d answer in this manner: America is Glenn Beck – not the "liberal/progressive" elite. Like it or not, there’s a good reason for Beck’s raging popularity: He brings a message of truth that resonates with America. He voices our anger over the lies; he voices our frustration with campaign promises not kept; he voices our concern over the currently misguided direction of the country we love. He represents us – the “tea baggers”, “town-hallers” and “Astroturfers” – you know, the folks progressives and many of our misguided representatives in Washington just love to hate.
This rabid hatred is underscored in various ways throughout the rest of the article, including a few bullet points that fall flat:
“Cultural Impact” - Of course! Glen Beck has given America a voice and a direction to challenge what they see as impending disaster in the White House. That’s a huge impact. Will Beck eclipse Oprah? Why not?
“Scalps” – What, if anything about Van Jones’ departure can be considered a scalping? Jones’ own questionable history did him in. Beck did nothing but bring it to light.
“Followers” – Becks’s revelations regarding the “shadow cabinet” of Obama “czars” should have been exposed by House and Senate leaders long before Beck turned on the spotlight. What took them so long to catch up?
Finally, Milbank’s screed ends with a failed twist of one of Beck’s own frequent lines: “I fear for this country.” Sadly, it backfires on Milbank, revealing him as just another petulant pecksniff, with a very dull political ax to grind…
This particular offering is so egregious, it simply begs for a response. Amusing, isn’t it, that so-called “liberals” can’t stand opinion or philosophy that conflicts with their own? Nothing “liberal” about them. That’s why the term “progressive”, might be a better term instead. Rather than argue the merits of an issue and try to persuade, these folks go after the individual. Utilizing ridicule, isolation, outright attack, when all else fails, they resort personal destruction. That’s why progressives are so desperate to silence him. However, it’s no surprise to Beck, who often reviews these slam tactics during his show, reminding the audience that they originate in Sol Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” (a how-to manual for leftist agitators).
Dissecting the article, first few paragraphs are devoted to broad-brushed smears. By paragraph 4, Milbank gets down to specifics, insinuating evil connotations over Beck’s discussions. These range from the possibility of “death panels”, “FEMA concentration camps”, etc., to Hitler’s SA-type “civilian national security forces” – most of which are either implied or contained in actual health care reform language, or the latter – specifically called for (for whatever need anyone can imagine), by then-candidate Obama, himself.
Another jab - at Beck’s urging viewers to read “Mein Kamph” - misses, because Milbank flubs Beck's message in the warning: Not learning from the lessons of history condemns one to repeat them. I’d personally recommend the Alinsky book as well. It helps explain the disdainful, condescending attitudes displayed by Washington politicians toward their tea-partying constituents.
Further along, Milbank asks: “Is Glenn Beck America?” As much as this may pain him, I’d answer in this manner: America is Glenn Beck – not the "liberal/progressive" elite. Like it or not, there’s a good reason for Beck’s raging popularity: He brings a message of truth that resonates with America. He voices our anger over the lies; he voices our frustration with campaign promises not kept; he voices our concern over the currently misguided direction of the country we love. He represents us – the “tea baggers”, “town-hallers” and “Astroturfers” – you know, the folks progressives and many of our misguided representatives in Washington just love to hate.
This rabid hatred is underscored in various ways throughout the rest of the article, including a few bullet points that fall flat:
“Cultural Impact” - Of course! Glen Beck has given America a voice and a direction to challenge what they see as impending disaster in the White House. That’s a huge impact. Will Beck eclipse Oprah? Why not?
“Scalps” – What, if anything about Van Jones’ departure can be considered a scalping? Jones’ own questionable history did him in. Beck did nothing but bring it to light.
“Followers” – Becks’s revelations regarding the “shadow cabinet” of Obama “czars” should have been exposed by House and Senate leaders long before Beck turned on the spotlight. What took them so long to catch up?
Finally, Milbank’s screed ends with a failed twist of one of Beck’s own frequent lines: “I fear for this country.” Sadly, it backfires on Milbank, revealing him as just another petulant pecksniff, with a very dull political ax to grind…
Friday, January 8, 2010
Fire the TSA Chief?
Should TSA chief Janet Napolitano lose her job? In the words of Robert Crandall, former CEO of American Airlines, the answer is a resounding “Yes!” In a TV interview, Crandall went on to say we need someone in the job who actually knows something about security and transportation – not some politician.
Now that’s the most cogent pronouncement on the subject since the “Fruit of the Loom” Bomber’s attempt at jihad on Christmas Day.
The President has referred to this episode as a “systemic error”. How much of a breakdown was this "error"? Consider the following: A young foreign national male, traveling alone, flies from Nigeria (a destination publicly listed for questionable security procedures) to Amsterdam. He buys a one-way ticket, pays cash, and has no luggage. He then transfers to a U.S. flag carrier bound for a U.S. destination – Detroit. Upon his arrival into Amsterdam, any one of these factors should have triggered heightened observation and further evaluation of this individual. In the absence of an additional security check, why didn’t the Delta Airlines station agent request one, or at the very least, call for further questioning of this individual?
In the face of this catastrophe, Janet Napolitano’s attempt to deflect blame for this lapse by stating “the system worked” was utterly idiotic. It underscored the fact that she is in way over her head and has no clear idea of the magnitude of her responsibility. Make no mistake: This is an issue we simply must get right – the first time, every time. Yet, this Administration has yet to hold anyone accountable. Instead, the President claims a broad-based “systemic” error. How many more such “systemic” errors can we afford?
To put it in military terms, the Obama Administration clearly does not understand the responsibility of command. If a Naval vessel winds up stuck on a sand bar or suffers some other mishap, it doesn’t matter who was on the bridge at the time; it’s always the skipper of the ship who bears the ultimate responsibility - and the consequences. Sadly, that concept seems lost on this regime.
Considering this Administration’s stances on a number of issues so far (health care “reform”, intractable national debt, massive stimulus spending, bank bailouts, illegal immigration, etc.), it makes one wonder if Obama may actually be trying to wreck this nation on purpose – to facilitate its radical re-shaping into the socialist society he apparently craves...
Now that’s the most cogent pronouncement on the subject since the “Fruit of the Loom” Bomber’s attempt at jihad on Christmas Day.
The President has referred to this episode as a “systemic error”. How much of a breakdown was this "error"? Consider the following: A young foreign national male, traveling alone, flies from Nigeria (a destination publicly listed for questionable security procedures) to Amsterdam. He buys a one-way ticket, pays cash, and has no luggage. He then transfers to a U.S. flag carrier bound for a U.S. destination – Detroit. Upon his arrival into Amsterdam, any one of these factors should have triggered heightened observation and further evaluation of this individual. In the absence of an additional security check, why didn’t the Delta Airlines station agent request one, or at the very least, call for further questioning of this individual?
In the face of this catastrophe, Janet Napolitano’s attempt to deflect blame for this lapse by stating “the system worked” was utterly idiotic. It underscored the fact that she is in way over her head and has no clear idea of the magnitude of her responsibility. Make no mistake: This is an issue we simply must get right – the first time, every time. Yet, this Administration has yet to hold anyone accountable. Instead, the President claims a broad-based “systemic” error. How many more such “systemic” errors can we afford?
To put it in military terms, the Obama Administration clearly does not understand the responsibility of command. If a Naval vessel winds up stuck on a sand bar or suffers some other mishap, it doesn’t matter who was on the bridge at the time; it’s always the skipper of the ship who bears the ultimate responsibility - and the consequences. Sadly, that concept seems lost on this regime.
Considering this Administration’s stances on a number of issues so far (health care “reform”, intractable national debt, massive stimulus spending, bank bailouts, illegal immigration, etc.), it makes one wonder if Obama may actually be trying to wreck this nation on purpose – to facilitate its radical re-shaping into the socialist society he apparently craves...
GPS for Illegals?
Ruben Navarrette, a columnist for the San Diego Union-Tribute, frequently appears in the Sacramento Bee. His recent tortured narrative “Border-hopping app belies a poor grasp of civil disobedience”, discusses a cell-phone application that guides the user through the southern California desert, aiding illegal immigration, by pointing out emergency water stations along the way. In his discourse, he seems confused over certain issues like proper use of state taxpayer funds and the legality of such devices. If it’s a cry for help, perhaps I can assist:
The production of a device or app that provides guidance and assistance to those attempting to enter this country illegally is against the law. Any individual who produces such a device is a criminal.
Navarrette states the thought that “state tax dollars may have gone to fund this research” doesn’t bother him. Oh, really? Well it certainly bothers me – and I suspect - the majority of my fellow California citizens and taxpayers.
If Professor Ricardo Dominguez developed and produced this device on UCSD property, utilizing public funds, he should be investigated, dismissed and - if appropriate - prosecuted. Such utilization of UCSD facilities and funding certainly do not lie within the scope of activities most California taxpayers would consider proper.
Moreover, if we have individuals or groups who place their ethereal notions of “trans-global rights” above this nation’s border sovereignty, we need to examine their motives carefully.
Regarding immigration, my surname clearly does not trace back to the Mayflower. Navarrette often tries to fog the issue by blurring “immigration” with “illegal immigration”. However, they are two entirely different topics. While I encourage immigration through proper channels (like my father did), I strenuously oppose illegal immigration. Those who participate in or facilitate the latter are, in my mind, criminals.
Simple enough?
The production of a device or app that provides guidance and assistance to those attempting to enter this country illegally is against the law. Any individual who produces such a device is a criminal.
Navarrette states the thought that “state tax dollars may have gone to fund this research” doesn’t bother him. Oh, really? Well it certainly bothers me – and I suspect - the majority of my fellow California citizens and taxpayers.
If Professor Ricardo Dominguez developed and produced this device on UCSD property, utilizing public funds, he should be investigated, dismissed and - if appropriate - prosecuted. Such utilization of UCSD facilities and funding certainly do not lie within the scope of activities most California taxpayers would consider proper.
Moreover, if we have individuals or groups who place their ethereal notions of “trans-global rights” above this nation’s border sovereignty, we need to examine their motives carefully.
Regarding immigration, my surname clearly does not trace back to the Mayflower. Navarrette often tries to fog the issue by blurring “immigration” with “illegal immigration”. However, they are two entirely different topics. While I encourage immigration through proper channels (like my father did), I strenuously oppose illegal immigration. Those who participate in or facilitate the latter are, in my mind, criminals.
Simple enough?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)