In yet another example of the kind of slant you can only get from liberal news organizations, politifac gave Mitt Romney its "lie of the year" award. He got it for his claim Jeeps were being made in China.....
That's it,
that's the "lie of the year."
Forget when Harry Reid accused Romney of
not paying taxes in over ten years. No, that wasn't that big. It certainly
wasn't that much of a big deal since Harry felt comfortable enough to then move
on to call Romney a poor example for the Mormon faith. Nothing wrong with that
either I guess.
Forget when Obama's campaign manager Stephanie Cutter
stated Romney could be guilty of a felony. No, that's not that bad either. Heck,
a few weeks later when President Obama faced the press he was asked point blank
about this accusation and it's effect on the "tone" of the campaigns. Obama's
response "well, lets be clear, no one has said Romney is a felon." BTW, there was
no follow up on this false statement from the President. Nope, Cutter's remarks
and Obama's false statement later are not that bad.
It's not even
that bad when an Obama Superpac put out an ad accusing Romney of causing a
woman's death from cancer. The ad featured a man who had been laid off by a
company purchased from Bain Capital. His wife still had a job, but lost it a few
years later herself. Still a few years later she unfortunately was diagnosed
with cancer and ended up passing away. No, that wasn't the lie of the
year either.
The lie of the year..... was Romney when he stated Jeeps are
being made in China.... Are you friggin kidding me?
Here's the link to
the news story.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romne....--election.html
Friday, December 28, 2012
NY Newspaper publishes names of gun owners
A newspaper is "naming names" of all those who own firearms and where they live in two counties, so far, in New York.
I guess openly creating a list and seeking to turn neighbor against neighbor is "cool" again. This is especially amusing considering how much the liberals despise Senator Joseph McCarthy for his investigations into citizens for unamerican activities and ties to communism.
I can't speak for all gun owners, but I can say I have no issue with my name and location being published and it being known that I am a gun owner. I think the more it's known I keep a gun where I live, the less likely it will be that I'm targeted by criminals or would be thugs.
A blogger has responded though, and published the home locations for the editors and journalists responsible for this as well. What's good for the goose I guess.
.......................................
Thousands of critics – including some journalism professionals – have weighed in. And at least one blogger has retaliated by publishing the names and addresses of editors and executives at the Journal News, the publication headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., north of New York City and part of the Gannett organization.
Still, the Journal News is not backing down. Editors say they’ll publish information on handgun owners in a third county (Putnam) once county officials have responded to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that resulted in tens of thousands of names and addresses in Westchester and Rockland Counties.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem
I guess openly creating a list and seeking to turn neighbor against neighbor is "cool" again. This is especially amusing considering how much the liberals despise Senator Joseph McCarthy for his investigations into citizens for unamerican activities and ties to communism.
I can't speak for all gun owners, but I can say I have no issue with my name and location being published and it being known that I am a gun owner. I think the more it's known I keep a gun where I live, the less likely it will be that I'm targeted by criminals or would be thugs.
A blogger has responded though, and published the home locations for the editors and journalists responsible for this as well. What's good for the goose I guess.
.......................................
Thousands of critics – including some journalism professionals – have weighed in. And at least one blogger has retaliated by publishing the names and addresses of editors and executives at the Journal News, the publication headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., north of New York City and part of the Gannett organization.
Still, the Journal News is not backing down. Editors say they’ll publish information on handgun owners in a third county (Putnam) once county officials have responded to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that resulted in tens of thousands of names and addresses in Westchester and Rockland Counties.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem
Sunday, December 2, 2012
What Would W. Do?
We now have 30 days left until the fiscal cliff is reached and the country faces severe repercussions for Washington's failure to come to a budget compromise. While the President should feel emboldened by being re-elected, I am shocked at the offer he recently gave Republicans. It wasn't just that he wanted more taxes than he had pushed for while campaigning, that is to be expected. It wasn't just that he wanted an immediate approval of 80 billion dollars in stimulus spending for the "infrastructure" the guy's a spender, this request would be expected. It wasn't even his request to put off sequestration for a year, that was troubling, but it would be easy to take that off the table if both sides could simply come to an agreement.
No, what was really troubling was his request to have sole authority to raise the debt ceiling without congress' approval.... forever. Basically, the man talked of a need for a "balanced" approach to solving the fiscal cliff after the election, but he wants to be able to spend perpetually with no more oversight? That kinda takes away all balance and puts all the control into one mans hands. The offer was shocking and frankly, could not be taken seriously.
And so now, here again we find ourselves, less than 30 days out, and rather than stay in Washington and meet with Republicans to talk over the deal, the President went to a rally in Pennsylvania where he implored republicans to accept the deal and not hold the American people "hostage." This is a term he often uses, and remember this is what he did, he went to hold a rally, and demonize the other side... 30 days out.
That got me thinking about how President Bush handled his parties defeat in the 2006 mid-term elections which saw democrats take control of both houses of Congress. President Bush signaled a willingness to work with both sides, and had a considerable amount of praise for then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2007 State of the Union. When it came to the budget he and the GOP worked with the dems, giving them most of what the wanted and still passing a budget.
That brings us back to today. What would W. do about the fiscal cliff? In the past President Bush accepted his parties defeat in 2006 and he worked across the aisle. He didn't run off to hold rally and he didn't hold rallies against democrats. He was elected to help run the country, and he did. So it is then reasonable to assume he would do the same now. At least that's my observation.
What will President zero do? My guess is more of the same, but unless he takes both the debt raising clause and putting off sequestration, off the table, no deal will be reached and the unfortunate victims of this political miscarriage will be the American People.
-Zach
No, what was really troubling was his request to have sole authority to raise the debt ceiling without congress' approval.... forever. Basically, the man talked of a need for a "balanced" approach to solving the fiscal cliff after the election, but he wants to be able to spend perpetually with no more oversight? That kinda takes away all balance and puts all the control into one mans hands. The offer was shocking and frankly, could not be taken seriously.
And so now, here again we find ourselves, less than 30 days out, and rather than stay in Washington and meet with Republicans to talk over the deal, the President went to a rally in Pennsylvania where he implored republicans to accept the deal and not hold the American people "hostage." This is a term he often uses, and remember this is what he did, he went to hold a rally, and demonize the other side... 30 days out.
That got me thinking about how President Bush handled his parties defeat in the 2006 mid-term elections which saw democrats take control of both houses of Congress. President Bush signaled a willingness to work with both sides, and had a considerable amount of praise for then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2007 State of the Union. When it came to the budget he and the GOP worked with the dems, giving them most of what the wanted and still passing a budget.
That brings us back to today. What would W. do about the fiscal cliff? In the past President Bush accepted his parties defeat in 2006 and he worked across the aisle. He didn't run off to hold rally and he didn't hold rallies against democrats. He was elected to help run the country, and he did. So it is then reasonable to assume he would do the same now. At least that's my observation.
What will President zero do? My guess is more of the same, but unless he takes both the debt raising clause and putting off sequestration, off the table, no deal will be reached and the unfortunate victims of this political miscarriage will be the American People.
-Zach
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Election 2012: The Aftermath
Well I was obviously way off in my election prediction. In the aftermath a lot of conservatives, including myself are feeling some doubt as to our idea of who are country is anymore. It is a fair question to have when we review the two campaigns. Romney's sought to stay above the fray, championed bipartisanship and gave out plans on how a Romney Presidency would improve the country. Obama's campaign was negative from the start, alleging Romney was a felon, had allowed a woman to die of cancer, hadn't paid taxes in ten years, and in the final moments of the campaign Obama urged his voters to vote for "revenge." Such horrible themes and yet he won re-election easily.
What does that say about our country? For me, I think it says Obama still has broad appeal amongst key demographics including the youth vote, single women, and minorities. Romney unfortunately didn't due enough to blunt this advantage to make the difference and so now we are saddled with the most incompetent President ever for another four years. For us as conservatives, while the loss is huge, our goals must remain the same, to put forward candidates for election and retake the country.
How do we do this? We start with short term goals which are the 2014 elections. Odds are good we can deepen the the Republican majority in these races, as well as possibly take the Senate. The odds are good because those lazy bums who voted for Obama usually don't show up during the mid-terms. We achieve this we will have effective control of the country for the final two years of Obama's administration, and of course then we turn to the Presidential election.
Moving on to long term goals. We absolutely need to find a way to send our economic message to single women and minorities. People agree with our economic policies, but the media and the Democrats have succeeded in painting us into a corner on social issues. These issues are driving single women and minorities away and will cost us future elections. Our way around this isn't to compromise or change on social issues, but to become broader as a party. We need to be welcoming of those who share our economic views, but are liberal on social issues. These republicans will come mostly from northern states such as Mass. and Michigan, but they are our key and bridge to our next generation of voters.
Another long term goal will be putting women and minorities up for President next time around. Tops on this list would be Marco Rubio, who by this time will have had a full term in the Senate under his belt. A secondary option may be Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico. She gave a good speech at the RNC, but I don't know much else about her to make a comment. A third option was Chris Christie, but his warm embrace of Obama following Hurricane Sandy I think will cost him his national aspirations. A shame, I don't blame him for his praise, that hurricane was a huge disaster for New Jersey, but plenty within the party won't see it that way.
Back to the point, if the GOP puts up Rubio or Martinez, it forces the media and minorities across the country to reconsider their views of the GOP as a "whites only" club. Once they get past that and consider the economic message I believe more will come to our side, but it will take time.... a lot of time.
-Zach
What does that say about our country? For me, I think it says Obama still has broad appeal amongst key demographics including the youth vote, single women, and minorities. Romney unfortunately didn't due enough to blunt this advantage to make the difference and so now we are saddled with the most incompetent President ever for another four years. For us as conservatives, while the loss is huge, our goals must remain the same, to put forward candidates for election and retake the country.
How do we do this? We start with short term goals which are the 2014 elections. Odds are good we can deepen the the Republican majority in these races, as well as possibly take the Senate. The odds are good because those lazy bums who voted for Obama usually don't show up during the mid-terms. We achieve this we will have effective control of the country for the final two years of Obama's administration, and of course then we turn to the Presidential election.
Moving on to long term goals. We absolutely need to find a way to send our economic message to single women and minorities. People agree with our economic policies, but the media and the Democrats have succeeded in painting us into a corner on social issues. These issues are driving single women and minorities away and will cost us future elections. Our way around this isn't to compromise or change on social issues, but to become broader as a party. We need to be welcoming of those who share our economic views, but are liberal on social issues. These republicans will come mostly from northern states such as Mass. and Michigan, but they are our key and bridge to our next generation of voters.
Another long term goal will be putting women and minorities up for President next time around. Tops on this list would be Marco Rubio, who by this time will have had a full term in the Senate under his belt. A secondary option may be Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico. She gave a good speech at the RNC, but I don't know much else about her to make a comment. A third option was Chris Christie, but his warm embrace of Obama following Hurricane Sandy I think will cost him his national aspirations. A shame, I don't blame him for his praise, that hurricane was a huge disaster for New Jersey, but plenty within the party won't see it that way.
Back to the point, if the GOP puts up Rubio or Martinez, it forces the media and minorities across the country to reconsider their views of the GOP as a "whites only" club. Once they get past that and consider the economic message I believe more will come to our side, but it will take time.... a lot of time.
-Zach
Sunday, November 4, 2012
This Tuesday, a Clear Choice in a Close Election
It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that I'm backing Mitt Romney for President. It should come as a surprise how close the election actually is. President Obama has only been in office for four years and has somehow managed to double our debt in that time, while at the same time presiding over an economy that saw 43 consecutive months of 8% unemployment or higher. The amount the government spends on welfare and food stamps have both doubled, and when Obama speaks of the next four years he generally says, do more of the same and just tax the wealthy "a little more."
That always gets me, the "a little more" comment. I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement. California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy. Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it. Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.
Back to my point on Obama though. The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs? Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees? Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?
My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan. Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President. He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.
That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes. Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney. Going over the swing states, I see the following.
Nevada: 6 electoral votes. My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama. I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley. Obama 243, Romney 206
Florida: 29 electoral votes: All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 235
Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close. Obama really wants this one. The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor." Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler. It's close, but I think Romney gets it. Obama 243, Romney 248
New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes. Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney. Obama 243, Romney 252.
Colorado: 9 electoral votes. Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 261.
Ohio: 18 electoral votes. All polls are indecisive. This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama. Obama 261, Romney 261.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes. Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 267.
Wisconsin. All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 277.
With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.
Note: I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here. Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category. I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.
Anybody else?
-Zach
That always gets me, the "a little more" comment. I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement. California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy. Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it. Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.
Back to my point on Obama though. The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs? Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees? Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?
My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan. Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President. He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.
That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes. Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney. Going over the swing states, I see the following.
Nevada: 6 electoral votes. My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama. I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley. Obama 243, Romney 206
Florida: 29 electoral votes: All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 235
Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close. Obama really wants this one. The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor." Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler. It's close, but I think Romney gets it. Obama 243, Romney 248
New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes. Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney. Obama 243, Romney 252.
Colorado: 9 electoral votes. Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 261.
Ohio: 18 electoral votes. All polls are indecisive. This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama. Obama 261, Romney 261.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes. Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 267.
Wisconsin. All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 277.
With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.
Note: I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here. Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category. I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.
Anybody else?
-Zach
Monday, October 22, 2012
Foreign Policy Debate - Does It Matter?
It did in the 2004 election when Iraq was the main concern for the country and
hung heavy around the neck of President Bush. Entering his second term many
figured it would remain the top issue as the global war on terrorism dragged on
eventually leading to President Bush's decision to send in surge troops to
Iraq.
Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.
Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.
It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war.
For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO. Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.
Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.
Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.
All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.
And it all ends on November 6th.
That's my take.
How bout y'all?
-Zach
Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.
Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.
It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war.
For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO. Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.
Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.
Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.
All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.
And it all ends on November 6th.
That's my take.
How bout y'all?
-Zach
Monday, October 8, 2012
So.... about the upcoming VP Debate
Four years ago after Sarah Palin became the VP choice there
was a media firestorm which lasted throughout the election cycle. It added a huge pressure atmosphere as Palin
and then Senator Joe Biden showed up for the debate. Adding to the debate were gaffs and supposed guffaws
made by Palin during interviews with the media.
All eyes were on her. As the
debate concluded Biden came across looking poised, gave his responses in a
clear and concise manor, contrasting Palin who while she did not perform poorly,
did not perform as well as Biden, IMHO.
Four years later Biden finds himself entering another VP debate which will be closely watched, but this time partially because of the many gaffs Joe has had himself over the past few months. Addressing a grouping of largely black supporters in Virginia, Biden told the crowd "They (Republicans) want to unchain Wall Street... They're gonna put y'all back in chains." Just a few weeks ago Biden had another gaff when he railed against the current Republican ticket stating they would raise taxes on a middle class which has been "buried for the last four years."
Whether or not his "chains" comments were meant to
be solely about Wall Street, the audience in which he made the comments made it
a very poor choice of words. Similarly
his "buried" comment which may have been echoed by Mitt Romney
purposely in the last debate, have hurt the Obama campaign.
And so, entering the VP debate on Wednesday, people will be watching and wondering if Biden is going to step on his toes again and offer a devastating gaff which Republicans will use to their advantage. The person he'll be facing will not be Sarah Palin with her "folksy" way of talking the media hated last time. His opponent this time around will be Paul Ryan, a very good public speaker who has endeared himself to independents in Wisconsin, and given this public platform, will likely endear himself to more independents nationwide.
-Zach
Friday, August 17, 2012
The first time I heard of Paul Ryan
Back in 2009 I remember a friend of mine forwarded me a link to a youtube video. This was during the big debate in the country over Obamacare. The video in the link had a Republican congressman who was doing an interview with two hosts on msnbc. This particulare congressman had released a statement expressing concern over the speed with which Obamacare was being pushed through Congress. In the statement the congressmen stated it was impossible for all members of Congress to have fully reviewed the legislation and with a recess coming up it would be best for Congressional members to go home, hear their constituents out and review the bill completely before rushing it through.
Now, as most people know, msnbc veers very far to the left and it didn't take long for them to ignore this Congressman's point completely, asking questions such as "Are Republicans genuine?" "Are there really going to be townhalls or will they just go on vacation?" etc. The congressman took it all in good cheer and patiently explained everything to the msnbc hosts. At one point one of the hosts pushing for a public option in the bill opined she considered it "unamerican" to not have it as it reduced competition. The Congressman was quick to point out that competition is about producing quality produce for a price, government run systems don't have this same drive but ultimately would be the ones picked up. He also pointed out the amount of extra cost this would bring to the taxpayer, and in a very impressive line he lightly rebuked the msnbc host by statying he found it troubling she "was using capitalist rhetoric to push a plan that is inherently anti-market." A short time later the msnbc hosts broke off their own interview quickly thanking the Congressman and saying they would try to do an interview later. In short, they ran away.
Wow, I was very impressed with what I thought was a inexpeienced Congressman at the time. The guy looked so young and yet had handled himself very well. This was my first introductiona dn impression of Paul Ryan. From that interview I remembered him whenever he came up in the news again, most notably as a budget wiz who was doing great things to reign in, or at least try to reign in spending. In one very notable example he proposed a budget to Congress which ultimately failed, but received 200 votes, coming much closer than the President's budget which received no votes at all.
In the lead up to Romney making his choice I knew Ryan was on the short list, but to be honest I hoped he wasn't going to be chosen. The man is a great congressman who has done so much for this country. I'm not sure he would be able to do the same as Vice President. If we don't win in November I wonder how much stock the Dems will now put into trying to oust him completely from office. So it goes though. Ryan was the pick and he is a good pick. His eloquancy, his ability to argue for the budget in terms relatable to most Americans, and of course the overreaction of the partisan leftists have put this man to the forefront and have given Mitt a needed bump.
I can only hope this bump continues through till November. Our country is in tough shape right now and I fear what four more years of reckless spending on top of little to no growth will leave us. We must win, there is no other way, and I hope Ryan will continue to impress people the same way he impressed me during that same interview I saw three years ago.
Now, as most people know, msnbc veers very far to the left and it didn't take long for them to ignore this Congressman's point completely, asking questions such as "Are Republicans genuine?" "Are there really going to be townhalls or will they just go on vacation?" etc. The congressman took it all in good cheer and patiently explained everything to the msnbc hosts. At one point one of the hosts pushing for a public option in the bill opined she considered it "unamerican" to not have it as it reduced competition. The Congressman was quick to point out that competition is about producing quality produce for a price, government run systems don't have this same drive but ultimately would be the ones picked up. He also pointed out the amount of extra cost this would bring to the taxpayer, and in a very impressive line he lightly rebuked the msnbc host by statying he found it troubling she "was using capitalist rhetoric to push a plan that is inherently anti-market." A short time later the msnbc hosts broke off their own interview quickly thanking the Congressman and saying they would try to do an interview later. In short, they ran away.
Wow, I was very impressed with what I thought was a inexpeienced Congressman at the time. The guy looked so young and yet had handled himself very well. This was my first introductiona dn impression of Paul Ryan. From that interview I remembered him whenever he came up in the news again, most notably as a budget wiz who was doing great things to reign in, or at least try to reign in spending. In one very notable example he proposed a budget to Congress which ultimately failed, but received 200 votes, coming much closer than the President's budget which received no votes at all.
In the lead up to Romney making his choice I knew Ryan was on the short list, but to be honest I hoped he wasn't going to be chosen. The man is a great congressman who has done so much for this country. I'm not sure he would be able to do the same as Vice President. If we don't win in November I wonder how much stock the Dems will now put into trying to oust him completely from office. So it goes though. Ryan was the pick and he is a good pick. His eloquancy, his ability to argue for the budget in terms relatable to most Americans, and of course the overreaction of the partisan leftists have put this man to the forefront and have given Mitt a needed bump.
I can only hope this bump continues through till November. Our country is in tough shape right now and I fear what four more years of reckless spending on top of little to no growth will leave us. We must win, there is no other way, and I hope Ryan will continue to impress people the same way he impressed me during that same interview I saw three years ago.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Shooting in Colorado
Early this morning a madman attacked a theatre crowd watching the latest Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises." So far their have been twelve confirmed deaths and fifty people wounded in this attack. No reasoning for the shooting has been deduced, but this is a tragedy in which another coward went to an area where they were confident no one would have weapons and conducted mass murder. These people were patrons simply attending a highly atticipated movie, they were mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and this slug walked up and gunned them down. The reasons why will be coming out in the news as more becomes known and the need to know "why" remains unsatisfied. Ultimately though, the reasons are irrelevant as this incident shows we still live in a dangerous world where nothing is entirely sacred or safe.
A person named James Holmes has been arrested for the shooting. A recent news release states the young man was from California, but had moved to Colorado to study medicine at the University of Colorado. People will no doubt assume this man was mentally unbalanced, and perhaps as more information is known that may be the case. As a college student though, and as a person who apparently conducted a fair amount of pre planning before this attack, I think this man knew exactly what he was doing. He was aware it was wrong and I believe that makes him competant enough to stand trial and to hopefully be sent to death row.
In the meantime, I would say that although these events make us feel that much more vulnerable, I hope people will still live their lives free. Don't let the actions of a mad man trap you in your homes. Don't let the actions of a mad man make afraid to go to public places. Live you life and have faith justice will prevail against this man, in this life or the next. As for me, I am going to the batman movie tonite as I have been looking forward to it's release for weeks. I hope to see many others there as well.
-Zach
A person named James Holmes has been arrested for the shooting. A recent news release states the young man was from California, but had moved to Colorado to study medicine at the University of Colorado. People will no doubt assume this man was mentally unbalanced, and perhaps as more information is known that may be the case. As a college student though, and as a person who apparently conducted a fair amount of pre planning before this attack, I think this man knew exactly what he was doing. He was aware it was wrong and I believe that makes him competant enough to stand trial and to hopefully be sent to death row.
In the meantime, I would say that although these events make us feel that much more vulnerable, I hope people will still live their lives free. Don't let the actions of a mad man trap you in your homes. Don't let the actions of a mad man make afraid to go to public places. Live you life and have faith justice will prevail against this man, in this life or the next. As for me, I am going to the batman movie tonite as I have been looking forward to it's release for weeks. I hope to see many others there as well.
-Zach
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Obama and the Left's latest Attacks on Business
I remember hearing a story about a dozen years ago regarding Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo. The story took place during the filming for "Vegas Vacation." Anyway, whenever they weren't filming the actors were spending some time playing the slot machines at the hotels they were staying at. D'Angelo spent a good part of one day feeding a machine that never really paid out for her. The next day Chase was at the same machine and suddenly the machine was paying out jackpot after jackpot. D'Angelo was angry with Chase's success at the same machine she had been feeding so much and demanded Chevy pay her some of his winnings, claiming it was her feeding the machine the day prior which lead to his current success. Chevy reportedly denied D'Angelo this, rationalizing that if he was to pay her, than logically he would also owe money to anyone else who ever played that particular machine.
The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below. During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them. Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else. It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.
What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country. Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed? He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending. During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day. And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years. The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.
On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now. The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans. The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor. The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed.
In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work. People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago. They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose. They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination. For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living. So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had. Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.
Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile. A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days. If you have time, please review the video below. I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
-Zach
The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below. During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them. Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else. It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.
What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country. Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed? He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending. During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day. And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years. The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.
On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now. The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans. The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor. The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed.
In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work. People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago. They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose. They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination. For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living. So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had. Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.
Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile. A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days. If you have time, please review the video below. I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
-Zach
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Book Review: Ike's Spies by Stephen E. Ambrose
I picked up this book at an airport and figured it would be a good read. I wasn't disappointed, but one thing that did surprise me was that this book was written back in 1981. I did not pay enough attention to that fact prior to buying the book, but it took little away from the book, while adding the unappreciated fact that the author many times when referring to Eisenhower would actually refer to conversations he himself had with the former President and General. That kind of closeness and intimacy is rare when reading a historical account of events which transpired more than fifty years ago, but added considerably to my enjoyment of the book.
With that said, the general overview of the book is one of a look of the early birth of professional intelligence gathering organizations in America from the viewpoint of Dwight D. Eisenhower's involvement with it. The book gives an early positive portrayal of Eisenhower as he arrives in London to meet with Winston Churchill and to be formally read in a program being run by the British known as "Ultra." The British had broken the cipher the Germans were used in their cable traffic and were able to read all message traffic being sent from German head quarters to their military units. Ultra was obviously a huge advantage to which the British and American counterparts used to receive advanced warning of German movements as well as to gage how successful their deception campaigns against the Germans were going.
From this early introduction Eisenhower learned the importance of consistently intercepted and correctly translated signals from the enemy. He would also learn the value of traditional espionage using spies when he learned from the British that they are intercepted and turned all Nazi spies which had been sent to Britain. This coup allowed the British to deceive their German counterparts by feeding them false information time and time again.
Throughout the war General Eisenhower would receive daily intelligence updates from a British General, Kenneth Strong. Strong kept Eisenhower informed on enemy movements, their dispositions, and the prediction on what further defensive measures they would take. From this Eisenhower learned the importance of timely and accurate information.
One interesting point I'd like to make about this book while it described American intelligence activities during these years is that this is probably the book that has been the most critical of the OSS activities during this period, and of William Donovan in particular. While it is generally accepted that OSS was little more than a bunch of amateurs who made little difference in the overall war effort, Ambrose paints Donovan as a person who played to the favor of sycophants rather than to the duty the war demanded.
Following the war, Eisenhower appears to have been content to retire, but eventually returned to run for President. The interesting point Ambrose makes in Eisenhower's decision to run is in how he says the Republican Party convinced him to run. It was through appealing to Eisenhower's sense of duty to his country. Republican Party officials reportedly stated to Eisenhower if he did not run they did not believe they could beat the Democrats, and without a Republican victory they believed it would effectively end the two party system in America. With that said Eisenhower made his decision and came out of retirement and won the election in 1952.
While President Eisenhower allowed the CIA to grow and flourish, enjoying a time described as the golden years of the CIA. Early on the CIA enjoyed success toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran. The author makes the case though, that this early success were against weak governments and unfortunately gave the CIA a sense of ability which was not really there. The author later linked this belief in their own ability to the failure commonly known as the bay of Pigs.
In planning for the overthrow of Fidel Castro the CIA had pitched an idea which involved the establishment of a Cuban government in exile, a trained military force to invade Cuba, and the establishment of support groups within Cuba itself to help with the invasion. Eisenhower approved of the idea and the CIA was able to move ahead with the training, however all searches for a suitable Cuban alternate to Castro produced no results. As to building support networks in Cuba, Castro's forces had the island so well blocked off from the outside world it was virtually impossible to establish anything prior to the approved invasion. Still, Eisenhower maintained that the trained Cuban forces would only be used if there was a Cuban government in exile which could be put in power immediately following Castro's removal from office. When JFK came into office they believed the CIA had planned all along to move ahead with this force and based off of Eisenhower's legitimacy they moved forward. The invasion was a disaster ans so ended the so called golden years for the CIA.
In the end, Eisenhower helped take an organization that had only been in existence a few years and allowed it to grow and flourish. After Eisenhower left office the CIA had a firm base from which to grow and to win the fight in the cold war.
-Zach
With that said, the general overview of the book is one of a look of the early birth of professional intelligence gathering organizations in America from the viewpoint of Dwight D. Eisenhower's involvement with it. The book gives an early positive portrayal of Eisenhower as he arrives in London to meet with Winston Churchill and to be formally read in a program being run by the British known as "Ultra." The British had broken the cipher the Germans were used in their cable traffic and were able to read all message traffic being sent from German head quarters to their military units. Ultra was obviously a huge advantage to which the British and American counterparts used to receive advanced warning of German movements as well as to gage how successful their deception campaigns against the Germans were going.
From this early introduction Eisenhower learned the importance of consistently intercepted and correctly translated signals from the enemy. He would also learn the value of traditional espionage using spies when he learned from the British that they are intercepted and turned all Nazi spies which had been sent to Britain. This coup allowed the British to deceive their German counterparts by feeding them false information time and time again.
Throughout the war General Eisenhower would receive daily intelligence updates from a British General, Kenneth Strong. Strong kept Eisenhower informed on enemy movements, their dispositions, and the prediction on what further defensive measures they would take. From this Eisenhower learned the importance of timely and accurate information.
One interesting point I'd like to make about this book while it described American intelligence activities during these years is that this is probably the book that has been the most critical of the OSS activities during this period, and of William Donovan in particular. While it is generally accepted that OSS was little more than a bunch of amateurs who made little difference in the overall war effort, Ambrose paints Donovan as a person who played to the favor of sycophants rather than to the duty the war demanded.
Following the war, Eisenhower appears to have been content to retire, but eventually returned to run for President. The interesting point Ambrose makes in Eisenhower's decision to run is in how he says the Republican Party convinced him to run. It was through appealing to Eisenhower's sense of duty to his country. Republican Party officials reportedly stated to Eisenhower if he did not run they did not believe they could beat the Democrats, and without a Republican victory they believed it would effectively end the two party system in America. With that said Eisenhower made his decision and came out of retirement and won the election in 1952.
While President Eisenhower allowed the CIA to grow and flourish, enjoying a time described as the golden years of the CIA. Early on the CIA enjoyed success toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran. The author makes the case though, that this early success were against weak governments and unfortunately gave the CIA a sense of ability which was not really there. The author later linked this belief in their own ability to the failure commonly known as the bay of Pigs.
In planning for the overthrow of Fidel Castro the CIA had pitched an idea which involved the establishment of a Cuban government in exile, a trained military force to invade Cuba, and the establishment of support groups within Cuba itself to help with the invasion. Eisenhower approved of the idea and the CIA was able to move ahead with the training, however all searches for a suitable Cuban alternate to Castro produced no results. As to building support networks in Cuba, Castro's forces had the island so well blocked off from the outside world it was virtually impossible to establish anything prior to the approved invasion. Still, Eisenhower maintained that the trained Cuban forces would only be used if there was a Cuban government in exile which could be put in power immediately following Castro's removal from office. When JFK came into office they believed the CIA had planned all along to move ahead with this force and based off of Eisenhower's legitimacy they moved forward. The invasion was a disaster ans so ended the so called golden years for the CIA.
In the end, Eisenhower helped take an organization that had only been in existence a few years and allowed it to grow and flourish. After Eisenhower left office the CIA had a firm base from which to grow and to win the fight in the cold war.
-Zach
Friday, February 24, 2012
Santorum has appeal because of low unfavorability rating?
Listening to the radio today I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about how Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been boldly talking to the media about the so called contraception issue currently between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church.
The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.
Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.
With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.
Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.
-Zach
The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.
Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.
With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.
Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.
-Zach
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Republican Voters Stuck Looking for the next Reagan
Almost a year since my last post, let's see if I can try and keep up the high quality that was my commentary before my prolonged absence.
The first post I would like to make in this new year is in regards to the ongoing Republican primary in which it appears Mitt Romney is the clear best choice available, and yet can't seem to take the nomination to save his life. There are multiple reasons why conservatives will give for their refusal to back Romney, but one of the more interesting ones you'll still here is how Romney is not like Ronald Reagan, or "what the Republicans really need is a Ronald Reagan to lead the party." Everybody says that, and yes, it's a great line that basically says, what our party needs is the best leader it ever had to lead the party again.
The problem with having that kind of a mindset is that the people doing the looking are essentially looking for something that his not there, a already known "legend" to take up the mantle. As history has shown us, people don't become legends until after their time in office and after history has had a chance to shine a light on how much their actions have helped or hurt us. The best example of this in "recent" history would be Harry Truman who's approval rating was somewhere below 20% after he left office, but today is considered one of the stronger Presidents this nation has ever known.
In looking for a leader to lead the Republican Party against the Socialist agenda of President Obama and his fellow Democrats we can't get caught up thinking about how wonderful the past was and how we need more of that in the future. We need to focus on what's important now, the economy and beating Obama, and come together for a consensus on a nomination soon, otherwise our division will doom the country to four more years with zero in office.
-Zach
The first post I would like to make in this new year is in regards to the ongoing Republican primary in which it appears Mitt Romney is the clear best choice available, and yet can't seem to take the nomination to save his life. There are multiple reasons why conservatives will give for their refusal to back Romney, but one of the more interesting ones you'll still here is how Romney is not like Ronald Reagan, or "what the Republicans really need is a Ronald Reagan to lead the party." Everybody says that, and yes, it's a great line that basically says, what our party needs is the best leader it ever had to lead the party again.
The problem with having that kind of a mindset is that the people doing the looking are essentially looking for something that his not there, a already known "legend" to take up the mantle. As history has shown us, people don't become legends until after their time in office and after history has had a chance to shine a light on how much their actions have helped or hurt us. The best example of this in "recent" history would be Harry Truman who's approval rating was somewhere below 20% after he left office, but today is considered one of the stronger Presidents this nation has ever known.
In looking for a leader to lead the Republican Party against the Socialist agenda of President Obama and his fellow Democrats we can't get caught up thinking about how wonderful the past was and how we need more of that in the future. We need to focus on what's important now, the economy and beating Obama, and come together for a consensus on a nomination soon, otherwise our division will doom the country to four more years with zero in office.
-Zach
Monday, February 21, 2011
Obama and the protests in Wisconsin
Alright ladies and gentlemen, I am back, your humble correspondent, el rush..... o wait a minute. No it's just me, you humble little blatherer giving his two cents on events around the world that effect the US. This post will be dedicated to the situation in Wisconsin where Gov. Scott Walker is trying to pass through legislation that would require state workers to pay more into their pensions and insurance policies. The plan on the surface seems alright, but the controversial parts of it are that it would allow people to choose whether or not to join a union, and it would end the ability of the unions to negotiate pay raises and benefits for state workers.
On state workers being able to opt not to join the union I ask why not? If unions are so great and they are so valuable than they will survive easily. They no doubt will lose some dues, but that hardly seems worth the kind of outrage that is currently being displayed in Madison. People should have a right to decide what to do with their own money, they give enough often in state and federal taxes, why should they be forced to pay union dues as well especially when those unions often times are proven to be wasteful with said funds?
That said the other part of the spending bill does draw a good bit of ire, and that is this refusal of the union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. This appears to tie in with the first line above, if you allow the union to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, what does that mean for the non-unionized people? Should they get the raise even though they did not pay any dues? Should they be paid less for wanting to not join a union? The solution is to take the CBR off the table and leave it up to someone else to get the pay raises and make them universal for all state workers.
With that said you may ask why people would then want to join a union, what good does it do if it can't have the power to negotiate pay raises? Well to that I would say that they still act as an agent to protect the pensions and healthcare plans of their members. Those are no small things and I would suggest that it is more than fair to pass this state spending bill with an eye towards further cuts, and if Walker really wants to close the gap, a temporary or permanent tax of some kind. Yes, it's a key broken campaign promise but this spending bill is essentially "taxing" or requiring state workers to give back as it is, it should be matched my some measure in the private sector if it's all to be fair. Perhaps a additional nickle tax on gasoline, or cigarettes, or sales tax. Plenty of avenues here, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
In closing I want to highlight comments made by President Barrack Obama on the issue. He has called it an "assault on unions." An "assault" language like this again used by those who decry it after the tragedy at Tuscon, but I digress. The President again weighed in on a state issue as he did in Arizona's immigration bill and in a local matter as he did in the "beer gate" incident in Mass. Each time he has done this the results have not been favorable to him and I think this will be another one that hurts him in Wisconsin and among independent voters. The federal has racked up a huge deficit on his watch and it is something that voters are not happy about, attacking a governor who is attempting to close a budget gap will be political fodder against him soon after this is past in Wisconsin.
That's it for me, any comments from the peanut gallery?
-Zach
On state workers being able to opt not to join the union I ask why not? If unions are so great and they are so valuable than they will survive easily. They no doubt will lose some dues, but that hardly seems worth the kind of outrage that is currently being displayed in Madison. People should have a right to decide what to do with their own money, they give enough often in state and federal taxes, why should they be forced to pay union dues as well especially when those unions often times are proven to be wasteful with said funds?
That said the other part of the spending bill does draw a good bit of ire, and that is this refusal of the union to negotiate collective bargaining agreements. This appears to tie in with the first line above, if you allow the union to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement, what does that mean for the non-unionized people? Should they get the raise even though they did not pay any dues? Should they be paid less for wanting to not join a union? The solution is to take the CBR off the table and leave it up to someone else to get the pay raises and make them universal for all state workers.
With that said you may ask why people would then want to join a union, what good does it do if it can't have the power to negotiate pay raises? Well to that I would say that they still act as an agent to protect the pensions and healthcare plans of their members. Those are no small things and I would suggest that it is more than fair to pass this state spending bill with an eye towards further cuts, and if Walker really wants to close the gap, a temporary or permanent tax of some kind. Yes, it's a key broken campaign promise but this spending bill is essentially "taxing" or requiring state workers to give back as it is, it should be matched my some measure in the private sector if it's all to be fair. Perhaps a additional nickle tax on gasoline, or cigarettes, or sales tax. Plenty of avenues here, let's hope that cooler heads prevail.
In closing I want to highlight comments made by President Barrack Obama on the issue. He has called it an "assault on unions." An "assault" language like this again used by those who decry it after the tragedy at Tuscon, but I digress. The President again weighed in on a state issue as he did in Arizona's immigration bill and in a local matter as he did in the "beer gate" incident in Mass. Each time he has done this the results have not been favorable to him and I think this will be another one that hurts him in Wisconsin and among independent voters. The federal has racked up a huge deficit on his watch and it is something that voters are not happy about, attacking a governor who is attempting to close a budget gap will be political fodder against him soon after this is past in Wisconsin.
That's it for me, any comments from the peanut gallery?
-Zach
Sunday, February 13, 2011
A Few Words on Egypt
Well unless you've been living under a rock you are aware that the dictator in Egypt, Hosni Mubarak, has been removed from power in Egypt. Surprisingly he has been removed all due to peaceful protests that took place continually for 18 days. So far it is everyones hope that this leads to a transition towards a representative democracy in Egypt, the country with the worlds largest arab population and one of the best militarily.
Still some concerns remain. What role will the muslim brotherhood play in Egypt's future? They do not represent the majority in Egypt, but among opposition parties they are the best organized.
Will they, MB, attempt to usurp power turning the government into another Iran and likely sparking a war with Israel? While this is a possibility it would appear unlikely at this time. The muslim brotherhood would need to either develop military powers in a hurry, or gain sympathizers in the military, or both. Neither is likely though, the military junta that has taken power has stated that it will respect the treaty the country has with Israel. It does this in no small reason due to the foreign aid that the country receives from the US, at last count around 1.8 billion a year most of which goes towards military spending.
Right now the military has dissolved Parliament and states that it will run the country for the next six months until elections are held. Will they hold to this deadline and allow a transfer of power to a civilian government or will they seek to rule the country longer? Now this is the million dollar question. Before elections are held the country needs to draft a new constitution which will be put up for a vote. This is no small matter and if the political parties in Egypt can't do this than there won't be any elections in September. How the populace reacts here is anyones guess but should the constitution process drag out this peaceful process could become violent in a hurry which again would likely lead to a military crackdown and the military running the country for a longer period of time.
If they do get a constitution passed in time for elections in September I would expect the military to allow them to be held without interference. So long as there is little violence and the newly elected government respects the treaty with Israel and does not interfere with military spending I don't see many objections being raised.
What does new civilian leadership mean for Egyptian/Israeli relationships? That depends on the government. Best case scenario is a very secular leadership is elected and relations carry on much like they did before. Worst case scenario is a more fundamental islamic view of government takes place and we have the making for a very bloody war, maybe not now but within the next 5 years.
So that's my take on it so far. A lot of unknowns, but so far the process has been peaceful. Let us all hope that this continues.
-Zach
Still some concerns remain. What role will the muslim brotherhood play in Egypt's future? They do not represent the majority in Egypt, but among opposition parties they are the best organized.
Will they, MB, attempt to usurp power turning the government into another Iran and likely sparking a war with Israel? While this is a possibility it would appear unlikely at this time. The muslim brotherhood would need to either develop military powers in a hurry, or gain sympathizers in the military, or both. Neither is likely though, the military junta that has taken power has stated that it will respect the treaty the country has with Israel. It does this in no small reason due to the foreign aid that the country receives from the US, at last count around 1.8 billion a year most of which goes towards military spending.
Right now the military has dissolved Parliament and states that it will run the country for the next six months until elections are held. Will they hold to this deadline and allow a transfer of power to a civilian government or will they seek to rule the country longer? Now this is the million dollar question. Before elections are held the country needs to draft a new constitution which will be put up for a vote. This is no small matter and if the political parties in Egypt can't do this than there won't be any elections in September. How the populace reacts here is anyones guess but should the constitution process drag out this peaceful process could become violent in a hurry which again would likely lead to a military crackdown and the military running the country for a longer period of time.
If they do get a constitution passed in time for elections in September I would expect the military to allow them to be held without interference. So long as there is little violence and the newly elected government respects the treaty with Israel and does not interfere with military spending I don't see many objections being raised.
What does new civilian leadership mean for Egyptian/Israeli relationships? That depends on the government. Best case scenario is a very secular leadership is elected and relations carry on much like they did before. Worst case scenario is a more fundamental islamic view of government takes place and we have the making for a very bloody war, maybe not now but within the next 5 years.
So that's my take on it so far. A lot of unknowns, but so far the process has been peaceful. Let us all hope that this continues.
-Zach
Sunday, January 23, 2011
The Dirtbags Who Politicise Tragedies and the Sheep who Follow Them
Well it's been a few weeks since a Congresswoman was shot by a mentally ill man in Tucson, Arizona and this incident has sadly shown us just how low American politics and those on the left will go to exploit a tragedy. Just days and hours after the shooting people started pointing fingers and stating that it was the constant political rhetoric that either caused, or at least contributed to this incident. To date there has been no link or evidence that this toad of a man ever read or was prone to follow any political ideologue. The biggest thing that has come out about the man is the fact that he was prone to paranoia about his surroundings, had something of a persecution complex while at Pima community college, and that often his ramblings had no coherent point or reasoning to it. To state it simply, the man is insane and trying to find rationale in the actions of a insane man is a fools errand at best, and a creeps errand at worst.
Still, the lemmings on the left have run with this idea that somehow talk radio and the right are responsible in some way for tilting this man towards shooting Giffords. They have called Rush and Hannity to complain, and Sarah Palin's negativity rating has hit an all time high. Never mind the fact that President zero called the GOP "hostage takers" in December after a tax bill "compromise" was reached. Never mind a democratically controlled Congress ramming through healthcare against the wishes of the American people. Never mind Keith Olberman's lashing out at Scott Brown as a "racist, sexist, supporter of violence against women" after his Senate victory in Mass. Never mind Rev. Wright, never mind all the polarizing things that the left does and embraces, no, it's really the GOP that is at fault here. If only we were "more respectful" in our views. If only we didn't go raise our voices to let others know we disagree, heck if only we weren't here at all and this was a one party rule country than maybe, just maybe, the actions of madmen with guns would never happen. That is the logic of the left, which would be funny if so many useful idiots didn't believe it.
In some ways though, this need to find a reason should be expected as a natural first reaction. A tragedy in which so many people died people need to find a reason why this happened. They need a moment they can point to and say "if only." To admit the simple truth that a man could do this and it's not for any sound reason is to admit to a vulnerability that people are uncomfortable living with. So as a first reaction it is natural to look for blame, everyone will do it. To still do it now that so much is known about the shooter though, is evidence of the left and those in the media being willfully ignorant in many ways and exploitative of it in others.
Folks, don't be intimidated and don't sit down. I'm happy today to see that the House passed the repeal of Obamacare and that it will now move on to the Senate for a healthy debate. I'm even happier to see that Keith Olberman has been fired from his primetime slot with MSNBC. This man was a toxic as they come and his removal can only mean good things for political discourse, IMHO. Things will get better and they will get their sooner if the new Congress keeps it's focus.
-Zach
Still, the lemmings on the left have run with this idea that somehow talk radio and the right are responsible in some way for tilting this man towards shooting Giffords. They have called Rush and Hannity to complain, and Sarah Palin's negativity rating has hit an all time high. Never mind the fact that President zero called the GOP "hostage takers" in December after a tax bill "compromise" was reached. Never mind a democratically controlled Congress ramming through healthcare against the wishes of the American people. Never mind Keith Olberman's lashing out at Scott Brown as a "racist, sexist, supporter of violence against women" after his Senate victory in Mass. Never mind Rev. Wright, never mind all the polarizing things that the left does and embraces, no, it's really the GOP that is at fault here. If only we were "more respectful" in our views. If only we didn't go raise our voices to let others know we disagree, heck if only we weren't here at all and this was a one party rule country than maybe, just maybe, the actions of madmen with guns would never happen. That is the logic of the left, which would be funny if so many useful idiots didn't believe it.
In some ways though, this need to find a reason should be expected as a natural first reaction. A tragedy in which so many people died people need to find a reason why this happened. They need a moment they can point to and say "if only." To admit the simple truth that a man could do this and it's not for any sound reason is to admit to a vulnerability that people are uncomfortable living with. So as a first reaction it is natural to look for blame, everyone will do it. To still do it now that so much is known about the shooter though, is evidence of the left and those in the media being willfully ignorant in many ways and exploitative of it in others.
Folks, don't be intimidated and don't sit down. I'm happy today to see that the House passed the repeal of Obamacare and that it will now move on to the Senate for a healthy debate. I'm even happier to see that Keith Olberman has been fired from his primetime slot with MSNBC. This man was a toxic as they come and his removal can only mean good things for political discourse, IMHO. Things will get better and they will get their sooner if the new Congress keeps it's focus.
-Zach
Saturday, January 8, 2011
House Republicans plan vote to repeal Obamacare
Earlier this week house republicans in a test vote, passed a measure that would repeal President Obama's divisive healthcare law with a 236-181 vote. This sets the stage for what will likely be more of a message than significant legislation when a real vote is held in the near future. While I think the Obamacare overreaches the governments authority as outlined in the constitution, and although I believe this overhaul does nothing to reduce spending the the cost of healthcare, actually increasing it, I hope that this is an issue that isn't pursued for too long by the GOP.
Although the GOP retook the house in November, we did not take the Senate and the President maintains veto power. For any hope to actually get this repeal done it would take months and months of campaigning on a issue that I believe the American people are tired of hearing about. With an irritated public wanting results from Congress and the government I can easily see an overreaching Republican party start to gain negative ratings from independents should they take this immediate and very contentious route towards repeal.
The better route, IMHO, would be for the house to pass this issue and take it to the Senate for debate where the American public can be reminded again just why they do not support this law which, lets face it, was forced upon us by a Congress and President that had no interest in listening to the American people or in bipartisanship.
Once this bill is in the Senate, look at moderate democrats who are not in favor of outright repeal, but are in favor of making many changes the the current overhaul such as making tarp reform part of it, doing away with mandated coverage, and allowing health insurance companies to provide policies across state lines. Add these reforms and we could see a much more palatable healthcare law that the American people can support and one in which the GOP can show a willingness to work with the other side, or at least more willingness than the Democrats had a year ago.
If none of this comes to pass I would suggest not pursuing this issue past issuing a few stern talking points against the law with an eye towards the 2012 election as the real chance at repeal. After dropping this issue it will be time to take on more pressing issues such as raising the national debt ceiling and reigning in spending. Keep these promises and with an improving economy I believe the GOP can look for an electorate to reward them greatly in the next election.
Anywho, that's all I got this week.
-Zach
Although the GOP retook the house in November, we did not take the Senate and the President maintains veto power. For any hope to actually get this repeal done it would take months and months of campaigning on a issue that I believe the American people are tired of hearing about. With an irritated public wanting results from Congress and the government I can easily see an overreaching Republican party start to gain negative ratings from independents should they take this immediate and very contentious route towards repeal.
The better route, IMHO, would be for the house to pass this issue and take it to the Senate for debate where the American public can be reminded again just why they do not support this law which, lets face it, was forced upon us by a Congress and President that had no interest in listening to the American people or in bipartisanship.
Once this bill is in the Senate, look at moderate democrats who are not in favor of outright repeal, but are in favor of making many changes the the current overhaul such as making tarp reform part of it, doing away with mandated coverage, and allowing health insurance companies to provide policies across state lines. Add these reforms and we could see a much more palatable healthcare law that the American people can support and one in which the GOP can show a willingness to work with the other side, or at least more willingness than the Democrats had a year ago.
If none of this comes to pass I would suggest not pursuing this issue past issuing a few stern talking points against the law with an eye towards the 2012 election as the real chance at repeal. After dropping this issue it will be time to take on more pressing issues such as raising the national debt ceiling and reigning in spending. Keep these promises and with an improving economy I believe the GOP can look for an electorate to reward them greatly in the next election.
Anywho, that's all I got this week.
-Zach
Monday, January 3, 2011
CO of USS ENTERPRISE being hounded by CNN
New post in a new year. Happy New Year to whomever maybe reading my oh so humble blog. Right now I just wanted to jump in and talk real quick about a story that has been running on CNN all day long, and that is the shocking news that Sailors use curse words and some of it was even broadcast over the ships internal tv system to the entire crew!!!! Scandelous I know.
You know, before this story broke I never viewed Barbara Starr as the sharpest tool in the shed, but her commentary here has me convinced she is a full blown fucking moron. I watched the entire tape and all I saw was an XO taking a humorous approach to his leadership while on board the ship. He is hardly the first officer to take such a standing with his fellow Sailors, and the usage of curse words is certainly not a shocker, nor is the simulated masturbation or sexual acts among male sailors. It's called having a sense of humor, someone please ask Mrs. Starr and CNN to look left, than look right and see if they can find a clue on this one. It's a non-story in my opinions, but I did love the video, so here it is for the rest of you.
hmm, having trouble posting a link? oh well, google the article under the Virginian pilot if you would like to see the full video.
-Zach
You know, before this story broke I never viewed Barbara Starr as the sharpest tool in the shed, but her commentary here has me convinced she is a full blown fucking moron. I watched the entire tape and all I saw was an XO taking a humorous approach to his leadership while on board the ship. He is hardly the first officer to take such a standing with his fellow Sailors, and the usage of curse words is certainly not a shocker, nor is the simulated masturbation or sexual acts among male sailors. It's called having a sense of humor, someone please ask Mrs. Starr and CNN to look left, than look right and see if they can find a clue on this one. It's a non-story in my opinions, but I did love the video, so here it is for the rest of you.
hmm, having trouble posting a link? oh well, google the article under the Virginian pilot if you would like to see the full video.
-Zach
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Birthers, another group of morons worring about a non-issue
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)