Congressmen of all stripes, but most especially the Democrats and supporters of Zero's policies, are taking it on the chin right now during the August recess.
Health care is the topic today, but the general tone is all about the deficit, the Stimulus (sic) program that isn't working, the missing jobs, the stupid Cash-for-Clunkers program, etc. Instapundit, and Ace, and the guys at HotAir are just the start of the places where you can see videos of the flack that these Congresscritters are taking. I'm sure none of them thought they'd ever see the day when meeting their constituents became such a difficult chore. It's not going to get any easier. America is angry.
So, here's what I think must be happening behind the scenes.
Zero and the D leadership have to be desperately searching for a way to get out in front of this thing. Right now, I think that they believe their only hope for success for any Health Care proposal will be to water it down far past anything resembling anything they've talked about thus far. But that will only work until their liberal wing begins to rebel (they are already rumbling). He'll need to walk an awfully thin tightrope to make it work.
If I were an insider, here's what I'd be watching: When the second- and third-tier staffers begin to quit, we'll know that they sense that their ship is beginning to sink. The first-tier staff will have had enough invested with their guy and/or the party that they'll stick through till the end, but the lower staff will have more mobility, and may take advantage while they can.
Zero has bitten off way more than he can chew. He allowed SanFranNan and Dingy Harry to stuff every liberal pipedream into that Stimulus Package, and he, as the inexperienced executive that he is, is now stuck with it. His Cap-and-Tax is in trouble in the Senate, his Cash-for-Clunkers is becoming a self-made Katrina, and he's losing on the central plank of his domestic campaign agenda--health care reform. Chinese students openly laugh at his Treasury Secretary.
[None of this should be taken to mean that I think all would be peachy if we had a President McCain. It wouldn't. Our economic troubles were building for many years, and are systemic. No president could solve them. Zero has made things far worse than they need to be, but McCain wouldn't have been a walk in the park.]
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Showing posts with label McCain. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 04, 2009
Sunday, October 26, 2008
I'm beginning to get a hinky feeling about this...
[Love that word, BTW. "Hinky". Makes me feel like a private detective, or something. I guess it means "suspicious", but it sounds like it can mean all sorts of things. Anyhooo, I digress, before I even get started.....]
It was either on one of the blogs I infrequently get to or one of my internet acquaintances, a guy who I listen to when he speaks, who has a theory about global politics/economics. For the sake of telling this story, I'm going to say it's the later, but I could be wrong. Anyway, it's kind of a long story, but he believes that the Powers That Be are acting according to a script and that all the large geo/economic/political acts that we're all now watching are part of that script. The PTB have built up a large house of cards of debt, and the only way to consolidate things from here is to crush our economy and to end up with a global currency (which they, of course, would control). Control the currency, and you control everything (which is why our Founding Fathers were [rightly] concerned about the power of a Central Bank).
Anyhoo, he believes that the PTB are looking at a number of issues circling around things. One of the larger items on their plate is the question of: What to do about Iran? They're obviously crazy with an apocolyptic view of the return of the 13th Imam or Seventh Seal, or whatever their damned thing is. A rational world has to believe they're serious when they start talking about destroying Israel or London or whatever other city is bugging them. Iran just has to be dealt with. The question is: When?
As much as we may see this as a conflict between America and our western allies and Iran, China and Japan are really big players here. They apparently have bought off on the idea of subdueing Iran. Again, timing is the key.
The Chinese Olympics this summer were a really big deal for them. They had invested a lot of prestige on this event, hoping to make the world believe that they deserve a place in the First World. So attacking Iran before these Olympics was out of the question. Parenthetically, the Russians embarassed the Chinese by their little adventure into Georgia during the Olympics.
What form will the attack take?
The Israeli's have a deep interest here. The Iranians are absolutely irrational about Israel. Both Israel and Iran have conducted exercises which, for any observer, would look like an attack on the other.
As the theory goes, the determinant then goes to our election. If the Israeli's think that we'll elect a President Obama, then the attack may take place before the election. If they think we'll elect McCain, then the attack will occur between the election and the inauguration. In any event, it will occur on Bush's watch.
So why do I write all this?
I'm glad you asked.
When I read that "US special forces launch rare attack inside Syria" and "Syria: US conducted cross-border raid", it may have been exactly what we're saying: Taking down a foreign fighter network, or grabbing/killing an al Qaeda bigwig.
But part of me has to ask: Is this an "October Surprise"? Did we eliminate a Syrian radar or anti-aircraft site to create a corridor for the Israelis to get to Iran?
Like I said: "Hinky".
It was either on one of the blogs I infrequently get to or one of my internet acquaintances, a guy who I listen to when he speaks, who has a theory about global politics/economics. For the sake of telling this story, I'm going to say it's the later, but I could be wrong. Anyway, it's kind of a long story, but he believes that the Powers That Be are acting according to a script and that all the large geo/economic/political acts that we're all now watching are part of that script. The PTB have built up a large house of cards of debt, and the only way to consolidate things from here is to crush our economy and to end up with a global currency (which they, of course, would control). Control the currency, and you control everything (which is why our Founding Fathers were [rightly] concerned about the power of a Central Bank).
Anyhoo, he believes that the PTB are looking at a number of issues circling around things. One of the larger items on their plate is the question of: What to do about Iran? They're obviously crazy with an apocolyptic view of the return of the 13th Imam or Seventh Seal, or whatever their damned thing is. A rational world has to believe they're serious when they start talking about destroying Israel or London or whatever other city is bugging them. Iran just has to be dealt with. The question is: When?
As much as we may see this as a conflict between America and our western allies and Iran, China and Japan are really big players here. They apparently have bought off on the idea of subdueing Iran. Again, timing is the key.
The Chinese Olympics this summer were a really big deal for them. They had invested a lot of prestige on this event, hoping to make the world believe that they deserve a place in the First World. So attacking Iran before these Olympics was out of the question. Parenthetically, the Russians embarassed the Chinese by their little adventure into Georgia during the Olympics.
What form will the attack take?
The Israeli's have a deep interest here. The Iranians are absolutely irrational about Israel. Both Israel and Iran have conducted exercises which, for any observer, would look like an attack on the other.
As the theory goes, the determinant then goes to our election. If the Israeli's think that we'll elect a President Obama, then the attack may take place before the election. If they think we'll elect McCain, then the attack will occur between the election and the inauguration. In any event, it will occur on Bush's watch.
So why do I write all this?
I'm glad you asked.
When I read that "US special forces launch rare attack inside Syria" and "Syria: US conducted cross-border raid", it may have been exactly what we're saying: Taking down a foreign fighter network, or grabbing/killing an al Qaeda bigwig.
But part of me has to ask: Is this an "October Surprise"? Did we eliminate a Syrian radar or anti-aircraft site to create a corridor for the Israelis to get to Iran?
Like I said: "Hinky".
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Journalism, honor and the roots of our crisis...
I found this over at HotAir, read it and frankly found so many paragraphs to clip that I could not do it justice. Instead, I'll just parrot Allahpundit and quote this too...
Do read the whole thing.
"...If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list
of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money
from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the
finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's
prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a
fair share of the blame at Obama's door...."
Do read the whole thing.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Saturday, July 05, 2008
McCain and Obama...
I'm actually quite surprised at the reticence that McCain is showing on calling Obama on his changes of position. He has certainly made his comments (here, as well as elsewhere), but he isn't aggressively casting Obama as less-than-firm in his positions.
I am struck, however, by this memory....McCain's Feb. 2006 letter to Obama on Obama's changing position on campaign finance reform.
The politically expedient change of positions is nothing new for Barry.
I am struck, however, by this memory....McCain's Feb. 2006 letter to Obama on Obama's changing position on campaign finance reform.
The politically expedient change of positions is nothing new for Barry.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
The Post-Election Democrats...
I've long thought (although I admit that at times certain circumstances have had me waver a bit) that this country will not elect an anti-war President in a time of war. I agree with John Fund here that McCain may have a better chance against either Clinton or Obama than many give him credit for.
However...
I have a nagging concern on what a post-election Democrat Party will look like should McCain win. Not long after 9/11...probably due to the closeness of Bush's win in 2000 and certainly after the Republicans increased their majority in 2002, the Democrats' public face showed that they had simply lost their minds. They embraced, then ceded their foreign policy agenda to a woman who is a simple fool. They held on to her until after her 15 minutes of fame were gone. They tolerated shrill harpies who are capable of taking the most vile of positions. Their lions were unable to take a calm rational argument to the public.
However, maybe the face of the Democrats was not insane, but something they cynically used to oppose the Republicans. Early on, Democrat David Obey knew that they did not have the votes to support a proposal to defund the war. Yet, they spent the entire year after they attained the majority doing nothing except to do exactly this. And when President Bush adopted Gen Petraeus' Surge, did the Democrats even allow that this approach might yield the desired results? No. They (or more correctly, their mouthpieces) questioned the General's patriotism. And after the Surge had had it's time in the field, did the Democrats even state the obvious: that it was actually working? No. The Rolling Stone now has a name for them: Chicken Doves...those Democrats who took an anti-war stance, not as a true measure of their commitment to ending the war, but to use as a tool to club the Republicans and Bush with.
So what will happen if Obama wins the popular vote, but Clinton takes the nomination through her strength with the super delegates? What will happen if McCain wins? What will happen if either Democrat wins, and then decides that we cannot leave Iraq? Will the Democratic faithful take to the streets (again)? Can the leadership rein in their extreme edges to be able to actually accomplish an agenda?
As much as I think it will be a disaster for either Clinton or Obama to win the Presidency, I don't think that a McCain win will be easy. Over the last 7 years, the Democrats haven't shown that they're able to do much other than attempt to obstruct.
However...
I have a nagging concern on what a post-election Democrat Party will look like should McCain win. Not long after 9/11...probably due to the closeness of Bush's win in 2000 and certainly after the Republicans increased their majority in 2002, the Democrats' public face showed that they had simply lost their minds. They embraced, then ceded their foreign policy agenda to a woman who is a simple fool. They held on to her until after her 15 minutes of fame were gone. They tolerated shrill harpies who are capable of taking the most vile of positions. Their lions were unable to take a calm rational argument to the public.
However, maybe the face of the Democrats was not insane, but something they cynically used to oppose the Republicans. Early on, Democrat David Obey knew that they did not have the votes to support a proposal to defund the war. Yet, they spent the entire year after they attained the majority doing nothing except to do exactly this. And when President Bush adopted Gen Petraeus' Surge, did the Democrats even allow that this approach might yield the desired results? No. They (or more correctly, their mouthpieces) questioned the General's patriotism. And after the Surge had had it's time in the field, did the Democrats even state the obvious: that it was actually working? No. The Rolling Stone now has a name for them: Chicken Doves...those Democrats who took an anti-war stance, not as a true measure of their commitment to ending the war, but to use as a tool to club the Republicans and Bush with.
So what will happen if Obama wins the popular vote, but Clinton takes the nomination through her strength with the super delegates? What will happen if McCain wins? What will happen if either Democrat wins, and then decides that we cannot leave Iraq? Will the Democratic faithful take to the streets (again)? Can the leadership rein in their extreme edges to be able to actually accomplish an agenda?
As much as I think it will be a disaster for either Clinton or Obama to win the Presidency, I don't think that a McCain win will be easy. Over the last 7 years, the Democrats haven't shown that they're able to do much other than attempt to obstruct.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
A Nightmare I hadn't anticipated...
No. Not that Hillary Clinton's advisors are "in a state of panic". Her hubris thus far means that she deserves panic. She deserves endless harping about her campaign donors. She deserves to be called a flip-flopper. She deserves criticism for crapping on Shuster. She deserves everything.
No. The nightmare would be the possibility of a McCain/Powell ticket mentioned towards the bottom of the article.
Let's stipulate that (open-minded) Democrats would agree that the black community is as concerned with identity politics as they are about the issues. And that perhaps, in a bit of triangulation, that McCain might want a black VP nominee.
But Powell? McCain may be less than conservative-pure, and he may be a Maverick, but he ain't suicidal. He's essentially running on the wisdom of continuing the war. How does Powell help him there? McCain picks Powell, and the conservatives he's been sucking up to since Super Tuesday would draw and quarter him.
I could live with, and perhaps welcome a McCain/Watts ticket. But McCain/Powell would be too far.
No. The nightmare would be the possibility of a McCain/Powell ticket mentioned towards the bottom of the article.
Let's stipulate that (open-minded) Democrats would agree that the black community is as concerned with identity politics as they are about the issues. And that perhaps, in a bit of triangulation, that McCain might want a black VP nominee.
But Powell? McCain may be less than conservative-pure, and he may be a Maverick, but he ain't suicidal. He's essentially running on the wisdom of continuing the war. How does Powell help him there? McCain picks Powell, and the conservatives he's been sucking up to since Super Tuesday would draw and quarter him.
I could live with, and perhaps welcome a McCain/Watts ticket. But McCain/Powell would be too far.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
A few thoughts on Mitt's departure...
I've never been much of a Mitt-fan, so I can't claim I'm heart-broken by his departure. However, I am much less of a McCain-fan, so I would have voted for him on Super Tuesday had this not been Arizona. McCain was going to win Arizona no matter what. My gripe about Mitt seems largely to be that he appeared to be running for CEO-in-Chief.
Angler in the comments to Slublog's piece over at Ace's Place makes a good point that Romney's departure puts pressure on Huckabee to shit-or-get-off-the-pot. All that said, Romney's announcement that he was dropping out of the race was handled with a grace that is hard to imagine coming from McCain. It will be interesting to see how McCain handles this Manna-from-Heaven. Does he arrogantly maintain the Maverick persona or does he truly try to move towards the conservatives who revile him so?
Couple this with the impending brokered convention on the Democrat side, and this will be a very interesting campaign.
Angler in the comments to Slublog's piece over at Ace's Place makes a good point that Romney's departure puts pressure on Huckabee to shit-or-get-off-the-pot. All that said, Romney's announcement that he was dropping out of the race was handled with a grace that is hard to imagine coming from McCain. It will be interesting to see how McCain handles this Manna-from-Heaven. Does he arrogantly maintain the Maverick persona or does he truly try to move towards the conservatives who revile him so?
Couple this with the impending brokered convention on the Democrat side, and this will be a very interesting campaign.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)