► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

The Obama White House is the 1962 NY Mets

by Phantom Ace ( 103 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Misery Index, Progressives, Uncategorized at April 30th, 2011 - 12:48 pm

The 1962 expansion NY Mets were the worst team in baseball history.  They were an expansion team that create to replace the void in NY by the departure of the Brooklyn Dodgers. The colors were based on those of the Dodgers, although the team was based out of Flushing, Queens. They were managed that first year by famed Yankee manger, Casey Stengel. His is known for his famous quote “Can’t anybody here play this game?” This aptly describes the Obama White House.

These clowns  in the Obama regime really don’t know what they are doing. They made a severe recession into a depression. They have propped  up inefficient companies, thus hampering a real recovery. We now have 3rd World style crony State Capitalism. Obama is giving Bernanke the green light for debt monetization, thus reducing our living standards. These clowns are just like the 1962 Mets, they really don’t know what they are doing!

It would be bad enough to compare the Obama White House to the New York Mets of today — but right now, the Obama White House would be lucky to be merely that bad. What it resembles most closely is the fabled rookie team that went 40-120 in 1962, the gaggle about whom Casey Stengel famously cried, “Can’t anybody here play this game?”

I’m not talking about the wisdom or lack thereof Obama has shown on the ludicrous issue of his long-form birth certificate. One can assume that for a long time, the White House thought the issue wasn’t really a problem, or even that the obsession over it in certain quarters was actually helping the president.

Now, however, it thinks the issue is hurting Obama, so it’s trying to bring the controversy to an end by doing something it clearly could’ve done anytime over the past three years.

But that isn’t what made yesterday such a disaster. What invoked the 1962 Mets was the White House staging of the birth certificate’s release.

Read the rest: Lack of birth control shows how lost prez is

The difference between the 62 Mets and the Obama Regime is that the baseball team only made themselves look like fools. The Obama Regime is hurting millions of Americans. Our already weak strategic and economic position, was made even worse by the amateurs and ideologues of this White House team. This whole team needs to be fired!

As much as I have my differences on foreign policy with the GOP and I don’t trust them on economic issues, I will vote for whoever the GOP nominee is. At least it will be a Progressive who doesn’t hate this country like Obama. After Obama is removed, then I will go after whoever the Progressive Republican President is when I disagree with them. But first things first . the 1962 Mets style Obama regime needs to go!

Update: Speranza made a correction to my explanations of the NY Mets colors.

Btw the Mets were to replace both the Dodgers and the Giants. Their colors Blue (Dodgers team colors) and Orange (Giants team colors) reflected that.

(Update Hat Tip: Sparnza)

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Economy, Misery Index, Progressives, Uncategorized | 103 Comments »

The Coming Doctrinal Fights in the GOP

by coldwarrior ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Politics, Republican Party, Tea Parties at April 21st, 2011 - 11:30 am

The purpose of this essay is to frame the upcoming debates by large topic. I do not intend to back one position or the other or one candidate over the other here.  The GOP is facing huge fights over these ideas and doctrines that may result in a contested convention where there are two (or three) candidates left in the running for nomination. This may not be  a bad thing because a good internal fight can have a cleansing, clarifying, and renewing effect on the party.

 

The Coming Doctrinal Fights in the GOP

 

Doctrine– (noun)- a rule or principle that forms the basis of a belief, theory, or policy.

 

Over the past twenty years, and especially in the last two years there has been several growing rifts within the Republican Party along the lines of Insurgents versus Establishment, the importance of Social Conservative policy, the importance of Fiscal Conservative policy, and on what principals should govern foreign policy. Battles over these doctrines will reveal where the splits are in GOP and should reveal where the party stands by the end of the Convention that occurs during hot August in Tampa Bay in 2012.

 

These internal fights are necessary from time to time as the political landscape and the people who make up the party changes. For instance, today’s Democratic Party looks nothing like it did under Kennedy. In the GOP this cycle, there are several main factions and driving principals that will be at odds more so than in previous years.  What wins in the GOP this cycle will be tested nationally in the 2012 Election. These facets of 2012 have to win the almost all of the GOP first and then win just some non-GOPers to win in 2012. The factions and ideas that will be debated and then tested are:

 

Insurgents/Tea Party versus The Establishment: The rise of the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) Party, and the popularity of Sarah Palin among the Right, and the latest Congressional Freshmen are the Insurgents. The GOP has had three true insurgencies in the past 50 years: Goldwater in 1964, Reagan in 1980, and the 104th Congress seated in 1995. That is once every 15 years,  the GOP is due again for an Insurgency.  We know from history that Insurgents are not always successful and are immediately dismissed on sight by the Establishment the instant they begin to rise. The Establishment does not want to change the status quo, the Insurgents do and were sent in to do just that by their constituents; this has been rather evident in the recent budget debate.  The Establishment prefer not to fight and verbally go after the other side. The Insurgents don’t mind a street fight if necessary. In this case, in this cycle, it is the Insurgents who are the fiscal conservatives and street fighters while the Establishment push the problems down the road, maybe change things slowly while protecting their power, and prefer to get along with the other side while maintaining the status quo. The Establishment in the GOP uses the ‘next in  line’ principal to determine who should run for the nomination with their backing, this is a very powerful method of staying in control; and control is a good thing if you are in the establishment or agree with them. The status quo has the Establishment with all the perks and power and a generally comfortable existence in DC. Eventually, if the Insurgents are successful, they can easily become the Establishment and the cycle continues. The Insurgents versus the Establishment factors into the Doctrinal Arguments described below.

 

 

Fiscal (Conservative) Policy- One can place themselves on a continuum on this doctrine: 1-10 where 1 does not really care about spending and the size/intrusiveness of government as long as the that person agrees with the policies and spending to 10 where the person wants the government cut right now to levels that balance the budget now and everything else be damned.  All Republicans are on this continuum somewhere. There has yet to be a fiscally conservative Congress or President since FDR expanded the government. No matter what or who is in charge, the government (spending/regulation/deficit/govt size/ or a combination of these) expands. There have been no real cuts, so no hard-core Fiscal Conservatives have had power yet.  But, what about tax cuts? That’s Fiscal Conservatism isn’t it? No it isn’t, because the size reach and expense of government keeps going up even when there are tax cuts. But, but, but…Reagan cut taxes and said that government was the problem! He may have been a Fiscal Conservative at heart, but the size and expense of government still went up under his watch. That brings us to this cycle, we are at the end of continual government expansion from both sides for decades upon decades. The choice this cycle is to slow the growth of government or cut it back; 1-10 is the scale.

 

 

 

Social  (Conservative) Policy- Just like Fiscal Policy, the voter’s Social Policy is on a 1-10 scale, where 1 is a total ‘I don’t care one whit about Social Conservatism nor does any of that that ever effect my choice of candidate in any way, to a 10 where  Social Conservatism is the overriding be all and end all of that person’s vote at the expense of all other doctrines and the candidate must pass a stringent purity test to get my vote. This doctrinal difference is very large in the GOP because it is very rare to find a true Fiscal Conservative/Social Conservative because often, Social Policy costs money which places those programs in the sights of the Fiscal Conservatives. This is a factor that is now unique to the Republicans. Social Conservatism ceased being a discussion in the Democratic Party many years ago. Is this disagreement a negative? That is a question open for debate if one side or the other stays home in the general election.

 

 

Foreign Policy- This might be the first time since the Cold War that Foreign Policy is this large in the primary season. This pits two old adversaries against each other, the Idealists(1) versus the Realists (Wilsonian versus Jacksonians perhaps (2) ?); it is almost impossible to be a true isolationist at this point, so it is not included here .  Both sides believe what they espouse is best for America in the long term and short term. A 1 would be a full blown Idealist that would meddle and or invade at the drop of a hat to spread democracy regardless of outcomes later. A 10 would be very concerned with future outcomes and current outcomes as they effect security and national interests if the status quo was changed by meddling or invasion. These can be described thusly: Idealist believe that spreading Democracy/intervening against ‘bad guys’ even by force is always in America’s best interest regardless of the possible outcomes; ideology over national interest and security. In short: ‘Everyone should have Democracy”.  The Realist will place security and national interest over ideology; The decision to invade is based on “What will be the outcome of Democracy if we invade? Will this outcome be in our best interests?”

 

The upcoming Doctrinal Debate within the GOP should be fascinating to watch and discuss. Some pitfalls are that the party splits, or one side sits at home in the general election, or that we allow the media to form these debates and determine the outcomes for us. This is an internal fight. If we allow the outside to control the fight and shape its outcomes then all sides in the GOP will have lost. We are due for this fight ans should welcome it, it happens once every generation or so.

 

/——-Footnotes/Background/Out of Bounds for the above article—–/

 

(1) I would have used the term Neo-Conservative here, but that term has picked up some baggage because of incorrect identification and definition of policy beliefs.

 

(2) Jacksonianism Rediscovered

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Politics, Republican Party, Tea Parties | 102 Comments »

“Boehner: Next fight to be about trillions, not billions”—Really?

by coldwarrior ( 73 Comments › )
Filed under Economy, Elections, Politics at April 11th, 2011 - 1:00 pm

The first bolded paragraph gives me hope, however…Some of us are not part of the ‘Amen Corner’ at the RNC  and right punditry. So we have an excuse not to be all celebratory yet because the seconded bolded paragraphs are probably the reality. Time will tell what kind of leadership is in the GOP. Can we really cut the budget substantially, or is this just an exercise in futility? This little cut is being hailed as a victory against the forces of Marxism and the third world spend-o-rama of the Obama Presidency. Are these cuts large enough to celebrate?

So, after reading these two competing pieces, what is your opinion on what has and will happen?

An opinion piece from Speaker Boehner:

While the president’s party still controls Washington, House Republicans have dragged a reluctant Senate and White House into taking this imperfect first step toward getting spending under control. The agreement will reduce government spending by $38.5 billion over the next few months — and by hundreds of billions of dollars in the coming decade.

This is real money. And as Stanford University economics professor John B. Taylor observed, “Reducing discretionary spending in 2011 … will help establish credibility and show that government can actually take needed actions, not just promise to take them.”

But the agreement is far from perfect, and we need to do much more if we’re serious about creating new jobs, fixing our spending-driven debt crisis, and ending the uncertainty that continues to plague our economy.

That’s why this week, we’ll advance our fight from saving billions of dollars to saving trillions of dollars as we turn our full attention to the GOP budget outlined by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., aptly titled “The Path to Prosperity.”

The Path to Prosperity is a powerful blueprint for economic growth and fiscal responsibility that will help our economy get back to creating jobs, stop Washington from spending money we don’t have, and lift the crushing burden of debt that threatens our children and grandchildren.

Before serving in Congress, I ran a small business. Created jobs. Met a payroll. I understand how important the Path to Prosperity is because I’ve seen firsthand how irresponsible choices in Washington hamper our economy by creating uncertainty and eroding confidence.

PLEAS READ THE REST HERE

 

Andrew McCarthy at NRO calls the above deal a failure and predicts more of the same, Please read the rest here.:

 With due respect, I think those who are praising the budget deal are deluding themselves. Under circumstances where we are trillions of dollars in debt, the GOP just caved on its promise to cut the relative pittance of $61 billion in spending because it’s just not worth fighting for more than the half-pittance of $40 billion Democrats claimed was their drop-dead number. “Drop dead” meant daring Republicans to shut the government down (which, as we know, doesn’t actually shut the government down). The Republicans blinked.

For me, this is no surprise — as I’ve said several times (see, e.g., here and here), I don’t think they’re serious. But I want to make a point about how strange this praise of Boehner & Co. is. A mere four months ago, the big controversy in conservative and Republican circles was whether the GOP had reneged on their vaunted pledge to cut $100B in spending in the current fiscal year because they had seemingly come down to $61B. As I noted at the time, there was no question that, if you looked at the fine print of the pledge, the commitment was $61B — but that if you looked at reality, both $61B and $100B were laughably unserious. No matter. Folks around here pooh-poohed my criticism and insisted that a $61B pledge was a sober first step, showing real fortitude about getting our fiscal house in order.

So now they’ve stopped short, significantly short, of that purportedly serious step, and the reaction is, “We won!” You’ve got to be kidding me. The only thing Boehner won is future assurance that GOP leadership can safely promise the moon but then settle for crumbs because their rah-rah corner will spin any paltry accomplishment, no matter how empty it shows the promise to have been, as a tremendous victory.

And what’s the rationale for settling? Why, that these numbers are so piddling — that the $21 billion difference is so meaningless in the context of $14 trillion — that it’s best just to settle, make believe the promise was never made, make believe we didn’t flinch, and put this episode behind us so we can begin the “real work” of the next promise, the Ryan Plan.

Regarding that plan, you’re to believe that the captains courageous who caved on $21 billion — and who got elected because of Obamacare but don’t even want to discuss holding out for a cancellation of $105 billion in Obamacare funding — are somehow going to fight to the death for $6 trillion in cuts. Right.

I look forward to next year, though, when the commentariat will no doubt be swooning over the just announced Ryan Plan 2.0. That will be an even more fantabulous, intellectually serious proposal to cut, oh, say $12 trillion (of course, if promises don’t mean anything, why stop at 12?). By then, the same pundits will be warning that the Republicans must not shut down the government to hold out for Ryan 1.0′s trifling $6 trillion. After all, we’ll have the real serious business of Ryan 2.0 to attend to, and the Obama Democrats will be offering to meet Boehner halfway with a swell, good faith counter-offer of $27.50 in spending cuts.

Tags: , ,
Posted in Economy, Elections, Politics | 73 Comments »

Lib judge who issued restraining order for new WI law should have recused herself

by Bob in Breckenridge ( 86 Comments › )
Filed under Academia, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Elections, Elections 2010, government, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Unions at March 22nd, 2011 - 11:30 am

This will come as a shock to no one, but we have yet another lib judge legislating from the bench.

And she’s only a Dane county circuit court judge, about a half a step above Judge Judy, and a long time liberal hack wearing a black robe.

Maryann Sumi issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the law stopping unions from collecting dues from state workers from being implemented, even though the four circumstances required by Wisconsin law for a judge to issue the TRO were not met.

Sumi is the same liberal hack judge who ruled against the Madison Board of Education, which filed suit against the teachers, who shirked their duties, and, rather than to do their damn jobs, which is to teach the kids in their schools, went to the Capital to join the protests.

For that reason alone, this imbecile Sumi should be impeached, fired, or recalled, or whatever procedure is available to remove this embarrassment from the bench.

Then, numerous news sources reported that this longtime lib hack judge’s son, one Jake Sinderbrand, is a dimocrat political operative who was a former manager with the AFL-CIO and the SEIU State Council in Wisconsin.

Both unions happen to have members who are public-sector employees in Wisconsin.

Oh, and Sinderbrand also runs a company called “Left Field Strategies”, and I doubt it has anything to do with baseball.

So this hack judge’s son worked for the very unions she is attempting to help, and the company he runs now helps these same unions with their political strategies. Can anyone say “conflict of interest”?

I can.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Academia, Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Education, Elections, Elections 2010, government, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Unions | 86 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »