Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie was in the news recently due to his statement that it will be a priority of his office to quiet claims of birthers. Birthers for those who do not know, are conspiracy theorists who believe that President Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii. Such a group represents a fringe group which should be ridiculed in the same manner of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but for the new Hawaii governor, they are a priority and must be silenced.
Sigh. As anyone who has read my blog will know, I am no fan of the President and his policies. He pushed through a health care reform policy that the country did not want. He and his democratic allies quadrupled spending and have added around 7 trillion to the debt in just two short years. He has made half hearted decisions in the war in Afghanistan and flat out undercut our efforts there by announcing a July 2011 withdrawal date, his foreign policy has been a joke and unemployment for Americans remains around 10%. Add to this his denouncement of Republicans as hostage takers during the tax compromise and we have a two-faced weasel as President with skin as thick as a dime.
I could go on and on and have spent plenty of blogs stating the many reasons that I do not like the way this man or his party ran my country during their two years of unprecedented power. The one thing I did not do denounce the man or speculate on where he was born. It's a non issue and a waste of time. Why the hell would anyone want to waste time debating someone dumb enough to believe Obama was born outside of Hawaii is beyond me, there are far more pressing issues that deserve coverage today. Also, what does it matter where he was born? Did he not grow up in Hawaii? Did he not attend college at UCLA? Was he not a community organizer in Chicago for a number of years before running for office? Does he even speak with a foreign accent?
No, he does not speak with a foreign accent and yes, all the other statement above are correct. If his birth was an issue the time to raise such a concern would have been during the Presidential election in 2008. Even then when the short form, or his certificate of live birth were issued it should have died, but conspiracy theorists being what they are, idiots, it has not completely died out and in fact has been given new life by a moronic Hawaii governor who deems that it needs to be "put to rest" once and for all.
Folks, with the new year approaching I encourage you to ignore these non-issues and instead ask you congressional representatives to focus on matters more important facing the nation, such as the passage of a budget for the current fiscal year. Tell them it's time to reign in spending, not reign in birthers.
-Zach
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Monday, December 13, 2010
Book Review: Decision Points by George W. Bush
I recently finished former President Bush's book covering his early political career and the major events during his 8 years in office. Like him, hate him, remember him fondly considering what we have today or rejoice that "bushisms" are a thing of the past, one thing I think Americans of all political affiliations can agree on is that Bush's 8 years took place in some of the most important times for this country in decades. His decisions, his agenda, his policy were controversial and events which took place during his presidency will be remembered by Americans for generations to come. President Bush covered each of these and to my knowledge did not leave any event uncovered. Overall I found the book to be a great look at the inside of how the administration was run and a great look into the President's rationale that went into most major decisions.
The book starts out with an account of George's early upbringing by his father and mother in Midland, Texas. Some interesting moments to note are George's simple upbringing early in life as his father sought to make himself a success, which was contrasted by family visits to Connecticut where his Grandfather, Prescott Bush, then a US Senator from Connecticut. A very notable instance in this visits with his grandfather is a time when he was in the Senate chambers and was introduced by his grandfather to a Senator from Texas, his grandfather boasting "here's one of your constituents." That Senator from Texas being LBJ. Other notable items from Bush's youth was his being shipped off to a private school in Massachusetts which was followed by college at Yale and later attendance at Harvard Business school, interestingly in Bush's first run for political office his opponent would use his time in northern schools to paint Bush as a carpetbager yankee, a tactic that worked.
Before the Presidency we have the election, and as most remember the Presidential election of 2000 was a controversial one in which the Democratic challenger Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency to George W. Bush. As Bush recalls the election campaign he notes that on the night of the election when it appeared that W would carry Florida, Bush received a call from Gore stating that he would concede the race to him. Gore than requested that W give Gore thirty minutes so that Gore can address his supporters. W gave it too him and waited.. and waited.. only to have Gore's campaign inform him that they were withdrawing their earlier concession. A month of court challenges later the Supreme Court ruled that the continued recounts were unconstitutional and that the earlier results would have to be accepted and the Florida and the Presidency were awarded to George W. Bush.
Covering the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Bush maintains that he wanted to project calm to the classroom and to the reporters. The last thing he wanted cameras to catch was a President jumping up and racing out of the room the moment he heard about 9/11. While Bush would later be criticised for this action I find his logic behind his decision acceptable, though I disagree with it overall and believe he should have excused himself from that classroom.
While covering the lead up to war in Iraq Bush devoted a good bit of time in his book to try and lay out the diplomatic courses of actions he took against Saddam Hussein's regime. He notes that in a world were the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred he could not sit back and hope that the regime would remain in it's corner and not become a threat to the American people. Interestingly he notes that they received intel prior to the war that Abu Zaqub al Zarqawi was leading a group in Iraq that would have chemical weapons soon and that they would use in a future attack. When weighing whether to attack the plant Bush opted not to attack the area feeling that the attack could create sympathy in the world for Iraq and lesson their resolve to demand a full accounting for Saddam's WMDs.
While discussing bipartisanship President Bush notes that one of the first people he invited over to the white house for "family movie night" was the late Senator Ted Kennedy. He notes that while he and Ted disagreed on many things, they both shared a passion for reforming the countries education system. Bush would ultimately gain Kennedy's support on this legislation and noted with pride the improved test scores for America's youth following the passage of the no child left behind act. He notes other areas, but like any American also notes the difficulty he encountered from both the left and the right on many legislative issues such as extending medicare coverage to cover prescription pills for the elderly, or his attempt to reform Social Security.
Lastly I want to cover the President's comments on the current political crisis. Bush noted the beginning by stating it was Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that broke the news to him about the failures of many banks and mortgage brokers that eventually required a bailout. In the early instances the government was able to intervene by finding a willing buyer in the free market to take up the slack and keep the failing company from falling under. Other banks could not be saved and required government intervention in order to save millions of lives. It was a decision at the time that Bush makes clear he did not wish to make, but in the end decided to make because the far reaching affect would hurt the American people more than an immediate government intervention. At the time Bush was attacked by both the left and right for this decision and the timing of this collapse likely served as the final crisis that caused any hope of a Republican victory in 2008 to disappear. Bush has since been vindicated though, as almost all institutions that received bailout money have paid it back with interest, making a profit for the government and keeping taxpayers from taking a permanent hit.
Overall the book covers many topics, a bit too many for this book review. I enjoyed it and I think readers of both political affiliations could enjoy it, though I would only recommend it as a Christmas gift for conservatives.
-Zach
The book starts out with an account of George's early upbringing by his father and mother in Midland, Texas. Some interesting moments to note are George's simple upbringing early in life as his father sought to make himself a success, which was contrasted by family visits to Connecticut where his Grandfather, Prescott Bush, then a US Senator from Connecticut. A very notable instance in this visits with his grandfather is a time when he was in the Senate chambers and was introduced by his grandfather to a Senator from Texas, his grandfather boasting "here's one of your constituents." That Senator from Texas being LBJ. Other notable items from Bush's youth was his being shipped off to a private school in Massachusetts which was followed by college at Yale and later attendance at Harvard Business school, interestingly in Bush's first run for political office his opponent would use his time in northern schools to paint Bush as a carpetbager yankee, a tactic that worked.
Before the Presidency we have the election, and as most remember the Presidential election of 2000 was a controversial one in which the Democratic challenger Al Gore won the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote and therefore the Presidency to George W. Bush. As Bush recalls the election campaign he notes that on the night of the election when it appeared that W would carry Florida, Bush received a call from Gore stating that he would concede the race to him. Gore than requested that W give Gore thirty minutes so that Gore can address his supporters. W gave it too him and waited.. and waited.. only to have Gore's campaign inform him that they were withdrawing their earlier concession. A month of court challenges later the Supreme Court ruled that the continued recounts were unconstitutional and that the earlier results would have to be accepted and the Florida and the Presidency were awarded to George W. Bush.
Covering the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Bush maintains that he wanted to project calm to the classroom and to the reporters. The last thing he wanted cameras to catch was a President jumping up and racing out of the room the moment he heard about 9/11. While Bush would later be criticised for this action I find his logic behind his decision acceptable, though I disagree with it overall and believe he should have excused himself from that classroom.
While covering the lead up to war in Iraq Bush devoted a good bit of time in his book to try and lay out the diplomatic courses of actions he took against Saddam Hussein's regime. He notes that in a world were the 9/11 terrorist attacks occurred he could not sit back and hope that the regime would remain in it's corner and not become a threat to the American people. Interestingly he notes that they received intel prior to the war that Abu Zaqub al Zarqawi was leading a group in Iraq that would have chemical weapons soon and that they would use in a future attack. When weighing whether to attack the plant Bush opted not to attack the area feeling that the attack could create sympathy in the world for Iraq and lesson their resolve to demand a full accounting for Saddam's WMDs.
While discussing bipartisanship President Bush notes that one of the first people he invited over to the white house for "family movie night" was the late Senator Ted Kennedy. He notes that while he and Ted disagreed on many things, they both shared a passion for reforming the countries education system. Bush would ultimately gain Kennedy's support on this legislation and noted with pride the improved test scores for America's youth following the passage of the no child left behind act. He notes other areas, but like any American also notes the difficulty he encountered from both the left and the right on many legislative issues such as extending medicare coverage to cover prescription pills for the elderly, or his attempt to reform Social Security.
Lastly I want to cover the President's comments on the current political crisis. Bush noted the beginning by stating it was Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson that broke the news to him about the failures of many banks and mortgage brokers that eventually required a bailout. In the early instances the government was able to intervene by finding a willing buyer in the free market to take up the slack and keep the failing company from falling under. Other banks could not be saved and required government intervention in order to save millions of lives. It was a decision at the time that Bush makes clear he did not wish to make, but in the end decided to make because the far reaching affect would hurt the American people more than an immediate government intervention. At the time Bush was attacked by both the left and right for this decision and the timing of this collapse likely served as the final crisis that caused any hope of a Republican victory in 2008 to disappear. Bush has since been vindicated though, as almost all institutions that received bailout money have paid it back with interest, making a profit for the government and keeping taxpayers from taking a permanent hit.
Overall the book covers many topics, a bit too many for this book review. I enjoyed it and I think readers of both political affiliations could enjoy it, though I would only recommend it as a Christmas gift for conservatives.
-Zach
Friday, December 10, 2010
Democrats, the new "party of no"
What a difference an election cycle makes. For the past two years the President, his party, and his lemmings in the media have branded the Republicans as being unwilling to compromise, as being partisan, and as being everything that is wrong with politics in America. They sum up these gripes against the GOP the Dem's called them the "party of no." These stances by the dems for the past two years are made all the more considering their mounting anger over a compromise on taxes that the Obama administration had hoped to pass during the current lame duck session of Congress. It was a compromise that would have allowed the Bush tax cuts to stay in place for another two years while extending unemployment benefits for those who are about to see them go away. No one gets everything they want in this bill, not by a long shot, but it seems reasonable enough to support considering that not supporting it means a tax increase on all Americans and an abrupt end of unemployment insurance for those that have been collecting for 99 weeks.
Today the economy still stands shaky two years after Obama and the Dems won massive majorities. Two years of massive stimulus spending and unemployment extensions have done little to nothing to ease unemployment and foreclosure rates in this country. The GOP opposed these measures in mass and were attacked by the dems for their stance. They never offered any real compromise in any of their legislation, and to be honest they didn't need to for the most part, they had the votes on their own. Still, they took a very dishonest stance by terming the GOP as being too partisan and being against compromise. They trotted out whatever false evidence they could to try and convince the American people that they should still hate the GOP and made any excuse they could to excuse the Dems incompetence, to this day still blaming Bush for the current economic woes. In reality legislation like Obamacare, the stimulus, and unemployment were measures that Republicans could not vote for. They were completely against our party's core values of fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility and the dems offered nothing in these bills in which Republicans could support. Party of no? Not really, the party of convictions seems more appropriate.
Now with the current legislation we have a real test of how bipartisanship and compromise can work in Washington and who is and who is not in favor of it. This bill is not a perfect bill by any measure. Senator Jim Demint termed it best when he stated that his biggest problem was that the tax cuts should be made permanent. Making them permanent would allow businesses to plan 5-10 years in advance and would allow them to hire more workers on a long term basis. The other thing to hate about this bill is the extension of unemployment coverage for those who have been on it for 99 weeks. Really? 99 weeks and we need to extend it? We have never had unemployment coverage for this long prior to the Obama administration and can anybody really say that if we extend it say... 50 more weeks that in another year we wont see the same people out there demanding that it continue to be extended? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough and if you haven't been able to find a job by now,I simply don't believe your trying hard enough. Lets also not mention that this bill adds deficit spending and therefore is not fiscally responsible at all. Sigh, not perfect at all, but hey, the Dems apparently want more, so let the American people see them for what they are and have always been.
As of today house Dems have voted not to even bring the tax deal to the floor for a vote without some changes and speaker Pelosi has said she will not bring it to a vote without changes. In sum, they are saying "no" to the President. They are saying "no" to the Republicans willing to make a deal. They are saying "no" to the American people who, for whatever reason known to God, they believe will back them in this stance, guess they were asleep during last months election. The dems in their last month as a majority in both houses have shown who the real "party of no" is and sadly, will likely remain for the next two years as well.
-Zach
Today the economy still stands shaky two years after Obama and the Dems won massive majorities. Two years of massive stimulus spending and unemployment extensions have done little to nothing to ease unemployment and foreclosure rates in this country. The GOP opposed these measures in mass and were attacked by the dems for their stance. They never offered any real compromise in any of their legislation, and to be honest they didn't need to for the most part, they had the votes on their own. Still, they took a very dishonest stance by terming the GOP as being too partisan and being against compromise. They trotted out whatever false evidence they could to try and convince the American people that they should still hate the GOP and made any excuse they could to excuse the Dems incompetence, to this day still blaming Bush for the current economic woes. In reality legislation like Obamacare, the stimulus, and unemployment were measures that Republicans could not vote for. They were completely against our party's core values of fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility and the dems offered nothing in these bills in which Republicans could support. Party of no? Not really, the party of convictions seems more appropriate.
Now with the current legislation we have a real test of how bipartisanship and compromise can work in Washington and who is and who is not in favor of it. This bill is not a perfect bill by any measure. Senator Jim Demint termed it best when he stated that his biggest problem was that the tax cuts should be made permanent. Making them permanent would allow businesses to plan 5-10 years in advance and would allow them to hire more workers on a long term basis. The other thing to hate about this bill is the extension of unemployment coverage for those who have been on it for 99 weeks. Really? 99 weeks and we need to extend it? We have never had unemployment coverage for this long prior to the Obama administration and can anybody really say that if we extend it say... 50 more weeks that in another year we wont see the same people out there demanding that it continue to be extended? At some point you have to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough and if you haven't been able to find a job by now,I simply don't believe your trying hard enough. Lets also not mention that this bill adds deficit spending and therefore is not fiscally responsible at all. Sigh, not perfect at all, but hey, the Dems apparently want more, so let the American people see them for what they are and have always been.
As of today house Dems have voted not to even bring the tax deal to the floor for a vote without some changes and speaker Pelosi has said she will not bring it to a vote without changes. In sum, they are saying "no" to the President. They are saying "no" to the Republicans willing to make a deal. They are saying "no" to the American people who, for whatever reason known to God, they believe will back them in this stance, guess they were asleep during last months election. The dems in their last month as a majority in both houses have shown who the real "party of no" is and sadly, will likely remain for the next two years as well.
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)