Grab Our Party » Political Process

Obama, you are done

clay — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 15:06:46 +0000

A president who has lost the confidence of the American people blamed everyone but himself for the problems of the nation. He dared lecture the Supreme Court on jurisprudence, complained about Senate procedure (which he himself operated within and benefitted from) and then pointed the finger of blame (yet again) at his predecessor. The most comedic moment was when one of the biggest spenders in American history gave the country a lecture about the dangers of spending too much. He ought to know.

None of what happened in the last year he had anything to do with. Except the stuff he liked. ‘Natch.

That this most brazen nitwit (BN) got elected is testimony to how screwed up the NeoCons made things.

It’s incredible. After the BN increased domestic spending by 24% over the last Bush budget, he now claims that he wants to control spending. Yeah. If he’s serious about reining in spending, he should cancel his $trillion health care plan, his cap-and-trade plan, and rescind his efforts to increase the debt limit. The BN won’t do any of these things because he’s not serious about any of these things.

He has two core competencies: telepromptering and complaining. And to think I really thought he had legitimate political skill. He can’t hold Clinton’s jock (unless he asked *really* nicely – we are talking about the man’s livelihood here), much leass Reagan’s. Day 373 of “America Held Hostage”

2010 GOP errors part 1

clay — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:52:36 +0000

In Texas, the GOP faces, ignores, challengers from Tea Party movement. At their own peril I would say.

No related posts.

Conservatives are numero uno. Liberals are that extra guy in the back seat.

clay — Fri, 08 Jan 2010 01:47:20 +0000

This is encouraging. The conservative majority MUST be heeded, or we will stay home again.

Heninger: America isn’t dead. It’s just dead in the water.

clay — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 17:40:20 +0000

Dan Heninger of the WSJ issues forth a cautionary column. It’s sobering.

At the start of 2008, according to Pew, well before the September financial implosion, 41% said the U.S. was the world’s leading economic power; 30% said China. By this November, those numbers had flipped: 44% said China was on top; only 27% said the U.S.

However false this is, what people are saying is they assume China in time will clean our clock. This is a frightening snapshot of national demoralization.

If we had a **shred** of leadership in the White House, this doesn’t happen. One leader, one spokesman who refuses to bad mouth the States would reverse this malaise.

President Obama’s accomplishments worthy of the Nobel Prize for Peace?

patrick — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 15:47:50 +0000

“to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” – Alfred Nobel

The shocking news of the Nobel Prize for Peace going to President Obama will be spinning heads across the political spectrum. The five-member committee who selects the recipient will certainly have to explain their choice, as this President simply hasn’t accomplished anything worthy of prior recipients: Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, the Red Cross organization. Even other questionable recipients: Carter, Arafat, Kissinger, have a body of accomplishments under their belts. This President has what? Aligning himself with or snubbing those who have traditionally been a US friend?

Britain: Very early in the US President’s term, the President treats Great Britain with protocol undeserving of America’s oldest ally.
Israel: There hasn’t been a step the President has made in regards to Israel, the Palestinians or the Middle East as a whole where he has spoken of Israel in relativistic terms with the terrorist-run, anti-democratic regimes who wish the small free nation dead.
Eastern Europe: Instead of overtures to these nations barely two decades free from Soviet oppression, the President’s reverses on missile defence and initiates a groveling “reset button” diplomacy with Russia.
Afghanistan: Campaigns on the need to fight the good fight; in office, he waffles on his commanders’ advice.
China: Becomes the first US President to refuse to meet with the Dalai Lama since the peaceful leader began visiting the White House.
Iran: Is scolded by French President Sarkozy over inept approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

The Novel Prize for Peace is once again reduced to the level with the Mtv Video Music Awards. Arafat winning the award should have been this generation’s clue that it was no longer to be taken seriously.

Has conservatism changed?

patrick — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 21:52:18 +0000

Eric Scheie asks the right questions:

Has conservatism changed? Is it the kind of change that “change” produced?

I don’t have to go along with Obama’s form of change, I don’t see any reason why I should have to go along with conservatism’s form of change. If I don’t like left wing Alinskyism, why should I like right wing Alinskyism? If I don’t like left wing ends-justify-the-means, by-any-means-necessary dishonesty, why should I like right wing ends-justify-the-means, by-any-means-necessary dishonesty? If I don’t like left wing identity politics, why should I like right wing identity politics?

Why indeed. “Ends-justifying-the-means” plays by the Republican Party are what led to the party’s losses in 2006 and 2008. The temptation is to go back to that playbook, this time finding fault with every single move made by the President and Democrats, crying foul at every little slant, and getting angry beyond what’s necessary, which lends too strong a voice to the wingnuts, conspiracy theorists, and stagemen. How did Reagan present himself? What would Reagan do with an Alex Jones, Glenn Beck or protestors playing the Nazi card with President Obama?

Don’t misunderstand me, it’s not that the GOP can’t play hardball. But there’s a line into wackiland that can’t be crossed if credibility in the electorate is to be kept. We can call the President an arrogant narcissist whose resume is thin. Portraying him with a Hitler mustache is not acceptable or excusable. We didn’t like it when it was done to President Bush, we should be adults and not do the same.

If the principals of self-determination, self-reliance, smaller federal government, a respect for the Bill of Rights, and less government spending aren’t enough to attract voters, then we’re simply not doing our job. Screaming, hysterical rants on cable television and Hitler comparisons won’t do it, either.

AJNTSA! RINO Alert

clay — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:38:24 +0000

Like a corny vampire, the RINO In Chief is rising from the grave.

No related posts.

Pelosi: Social change = political violence

clay — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 02:19:24 +0000

The speaker has stated something that seems obvious to me.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently invoked the grim specter of political violence, arguing that today’s angry political climate could cause people to cross the line from heated talk to dangerous actions.

My initial response is “well, duh”. As ye sow, ye shall reap. Her kind has been up to ass-hattery:

Beyond any specific case, some of the experts see the political moment as a part of a larger trend that’s been developing since the mid-’90s — dating back to GOP attacks on President Bill Clinton and continuing through the left’s sharp criticism of President George W. Bush, who was called a “liar” and “loser” by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

The doings, dating back to perhaps 1993 have brought us to:

This summer’s protests against health care included an episode where freshman Rep. Frank Kratovil Jr. (D-Md.) was hanged in effigy. Anti-energy bill protesters tarred and feathered an effigy of Rep. Allen Boyd (D-Fla.). Last Halloween, a homeowner in liberal West Hollywood hanged in effigy Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin at his home.

For the 1st time in a *long* time, we’re seeing rage manifested on all sides. I have felt for long time that this is going to get ugly. I am feeling vindicated.

That rage comes against a backdrop of enormous changes in American life. The United States suffered a humiliating economic collapse that threatens its long-term position as the world’s most important economy, with a staggering 9.7 percent unemployment rate. President Barack Obama made several controversial federal interventions into the private sector.

At the same time, the country has elected its first African-American president at a moment when dramatic demographic changes mean that the groups now considered racial minorities will account for the majority of the U.S. population by the year 2042.

That kind of sweeping social change can be deeply unsettling.

To say the least. Read on.

Storm clouds for Dems; I hope GOP is not able to avoid reformation

clay — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 02:22:12 +0000

A blog post illustrates what are shaping up to be bad omens for the Dems in 2010. As is noted:

The political scandals surrounding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich and Senator Roland Burris have handicapped the Democrats’ chances of keeping Obama’s old Senate seat. Governors in Colorado and New York appointed two relative unknowns to fill Ken Salazar’s and Hillary Clinton’s shoes, respectively, both of whom left for the Cabinet. And then Ted Kennedy died, prompting a Massachusetts special election due to be held in January.

Even worse, there are at least five incumbents who are facing competitive races: Arkansas’s Blanche Lincoln, Pennsylvania’s new Democratic Senator Arlen Specter, Senate majority leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Connecticut’s Chris Dodd and Barbara Boxer, who will face off with former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina in California. Reid and Dodd have some of the worst polls in the Senate — hovering near 30% approval ratings. “Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut: those will be the most expensive to defend,” says Nathan Gonzales, political editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report, which tracks congressional races. “The more money you have to spend on defense takes away from what you’re spending on offense.”

The potential re-entry of the filibuster into the political calculus, even the loss of the Senate, explains The One’s rash urgency in ramrodding His agenda through the Congress.

It’s my hope that this suicide attempt by the Dems does not give the RNC an “opt-out” of putting out to pasture the tools that put us in this mess to begin with.

And that’s bad, why?

patrick — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 22:50:08 +0000

From an editorial in today’s Washington Post, comes an odd-sounding editorial that belies a serious detachment from reality and from the distrust of government that once was a hallmark of serious journalism.

A group of well-meaning professional activists — and, so far, over nearly 60,000 online petitioners — want members of Congress to sign a pledge never to vote on any bill unless they have read “every word” of it.

They have a point. But their proposal would bring government to a standstill.

I’ll repeat myself, that’s bad, why? Or, as Glen Reynolds writes, “It’s a feature, not a bug.” If the norm is that legislation is read by those who enact it into law, the norm wouldn’t be that we had 1400-plus page bills which no one understands.

via The Volokh Conspiracy – -.