Friday, July 10, 2009
WSJ
Wow, Peggy Noonan totally excoriates Palin in her opinion piece today. The last 4 paragraphs really sum it up, and I have to say I totally agree.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Stimulus, Cont'd
Opinion piece in the Journal today driving home the point that the original "stimulus" package is in anything but, and in fact is simply a government expansion.
With the economy weak and the labor market continuing to decline, there is now talk of a second stimulus (which is actually the third, counting President Bush's 2008 tax rebates). This would be a mistake. The truth is there hasn't been any stimulus to speak of so far this year. Moreover, what's being called stimulus is just a smoke screen for a permanent expansion of government.
With the economy weak and the labor market continuing to decline, there is now talk of a second stimulus (which is actually the third, counting President Bush's 2008 tax rebates). This would be a mistake. The truth is there hasn't been any stimulus to speak of so far this year. Moreover, what's being called stimulus is just a smoke screen for a permanent expansion of government.
If ever there was a case crying out for the death penalty,
this is it.
Back in the day, in the South Carolina of yore, I wonder if a jury of his peers would have skipped all that pesky procedure, and gone straight to the punishment phase. As the expression goes (with a h/t to IMAO): "Murderer. Rope. Tree. Some assembly required."
Back in the day, in the South Carolina of yore, I wonder if a jury of his peers would have skipped all that pesky procedure, and gone straight to the punishment phase. As the expression goes (with a h/t to IMAO): "Murderer. Rope. Tree. Some assembly required."
Panetta
Good luck retaining the confidence of your people and serving as an effective CIA leader with this letter out there.
"Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week," said the letter, signed by Eshoo and six other House Democrats...
No surprise, the letter was headed by a House Dem in CA. My guess is this is a smear leak to force Panetta out of his job; looks like Pelosi will win this round.
"Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all members of Congress, and misled members for a number of years from 2001 to this week," said the letter, signed by Eshoo and six other House Democrats...
No surprise, the letter was headed by a House Dem in CA. My guess is this is a smear leak to force Panetta out of his job; looks like Pelosi will win this round.
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Stimulus
By the way, don't kid yourself about the intent of the timing of the stimulus money. The goal always was to architect a turnaround by summer 2010, not sooner. Why? Because as SHK Sr. pointed out to me the other day, that's when people will start making up their minds for mid-term elections. Economy turns around next spring/summer, things look rosy, guess who gets to remain incumbents?
Hey Fredo
Watched RT again the other night, thanks again.
- This really isn't a tax issue, is it?
- I suppose not. I'm not sure why I put it that way.
- This really isn't a tax issue, is it?
- I suppose not. I'm not sure why I put it that way.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
2012 Primary
Latest Rasmussen poll has Romney with a slight early lead, both with the highest votes as to who GOP voters plan to vote for, along with the fewest votes as to who they'd least like to see win the nomination.
Stimulus
With presidential adviser and liberal economic hack Laura Tyson calling for a second stimulus, one has to wonder when the MSM will wake up.
The first "stimulus" is not, in fact, a stimulus. It was a policy grab bag, nothing else. To date only 10% has been spent. Ten percent. Even worse, the administration's stated goal is only to have 70% spent by September 2010. That's correct: 2010, not 2009. If the originallie argument advanced by the Obama team to sell the stimulus was that a large rapid infusion of cash was necessary to stimulate the economy, why then is the planned rollout anything but rapid? One is left with only the simple truth that this was never intended to truly be a stimulus, it was simply the upshot of years of liberal program dreams.
Even more disingenuous, perhaps, is Biden's recent comment that not only did the administration misread the economy, but so did everyone else. "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures..." Biden said. This is false on two levels. First, the Obama administration did not misread the economy. They knew exactly how bad things were, but sold a song and dance to the American people. Second, the consensus opinions were absolutely NOT aligned with the administration. This was one of the few times the MSM questioned Obama early on, pointing out that his projections were far more "rosy" than consensus. Even USA Today had this to say:
Worse, the Obama administration's budget gets those uninspiring deficit targets with rosy economic projections.
Obama calls this honest accounting. At best, it's optimistic accounting, and if it proves starry-eyed, the credibility of Obama's far-reaching agenda will be in doubt.
Sorry Joe, but this is one lie that there is ample evidence on record to counter.
The first "stimulus" is not, in fact, a stimulus. It was a policy grab bag, nothing else. To date only 10% has been spent. Ten percent. Even worse, the administration's stated goal is only to have 70% spent by September 2010. That's correct: 2010, not 2009. If the original
Even more disingenuous, perhaps, is Biden's recent comment that not only did the administration misread the economy, but so did everyone else. "The figures we worked off of in January were the consensus figures..." Biden said. This is false on two levels. First, the Obama administration did not misread the economy. They knew exactly how bad things were, but sold a song and dance to the American people. Second, the consensus opinions were absolutely NOT aligned with the administration. This was one of the few times the MSM questioned Obama early on, pointing out that his projections were far more "rosy" than consensus. Even USA Today had this to say:
Worse, the Obama administration's budget gets those uninspiring deficit targets with rosy economic projections.
Obama calls this honest accounting. At best, it's optimistic accounting, and if it proves starry-eyed, the credibility of Obama's far-reaching agenda will be in doubt.
Sorry Joe, but this is one lie that there is ample evidence on record to counter.
Monday, July 06, 2009
I laughed so hard I actually got an aerobic workout
There's a first time for everything.
If you want to see how to write a complaint letter, here's a good place to start.
If you want to see how to write a complaint letter, here's a good place to start.
Gingrich-Rice 2012
You heard it here first. Newt is the only guy out there that I can get excited about as a candidate and I think Condie Rice would be a great choice for a running mate despite her association with W. Both are extremely intelligent and (AFAIK with Rice) solid in conservative principles.
Palin
Time magazine says we'll see your six possible reasons why Palin quit, Fredo, and raise you these five.
60s Day Continued: Peace Signs
Recently I've seen a resurgence in fashion accessories with peace signs. I don't know why it bothers me so much, but it does. I think it's a combination of things. Firstly, I associate it with people who unthinkingly and unilaterally call for peace. They have no context or conditions for anything but peace. This is extremely naive. Secondly, there's a crowd who don it because they like what that side of the 60s represented: free love, drugs and self-righteous protest. I see it as a destructive period that I'd rather leave in the past.
What do you think?
What do you think?
'60s Day at OccObs
OK, it's not just at OccObs since these are both national stories. But, here's a couple of oldies-but-goodies:
1) Robert McNamara. The JFK and LBJ defense secretary passed away, having lived a full nine decades plus. For those who lived through the '60s, and particularly for those who smoked pot, the man was a villain for trying to win in Vietnam. For those who came of age in the Reagan era, he was the introspective and wise old man in The Fog of War. Which, if you haven't seen, you should.
2) Jacqueline Kennedy Kennedy Onassis. I can't even. Just read the story here. Normally I assume scurrilous gossip has about a 10% chance of being accurate. But with the number of named sources this guy has, I have to think it's true. Never mind what this says about the Kennedys (nothing we didn't already know), but could you imagine the press keeping this quiet for a Republican?
1) Robert McNamara. The JFK and LBJ defense secretary passed away, having lived a full nine decades plus. For those who lived through the '60s, and particularly for those who smoked pot, the man was a villain for trying to win in Vietnam. For those who came of age in the Reagan era, he was the introspective and wise old man in The Fog of War. Which, if you haven't seen, you should.
2) Jacqueline Kennedy Kennedy Onassis. I can't even. Just read the story here. Normally I assume scurrilous gossip has about a 10% chance of being accurate. But with the number of named sources this guy has, I have to think it's true. Never mind what this says about the Kennedys (nothing we didn't already know), but could you imagine the press keeping this quiet for a Republican?
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Saturday, July 04, 2009
Sarah?
Well, this is obviously the news of the day. Palin resigns, and we don't really know why yet.
My initial reaction was that this basically ends her as a potential Presidential candidate, for the exact reason GOP pollster Whit Ayers highlighted in this quote:
Since Sarah already had pocket kings if she was running for the GOP nomination (Mitt and maybe Huck are the only Republicans with the name recognition and ready-made donor base that Sarah had), I have a hard time believing she's quitting to "build an organization" to run for President. She could have served out her term, not looked like a flake, and then started building her organization in late '10, in plenty of time for the '12 election. Yet I can't totally discount the fact that she's doing this for political reasons. It may just be a bad miscalculation. After all, Kristol hardly sounds convinced that she's abandoned hopes to run for President in 2012: "It's a huge gamble -- but some of her gambles have paid off in the past."
Still, it's a move that makes little to no sense for that purpose. So if she's not resigning for her national political ambitions, what then?
Possibility 1: Blackmail. Maybe someone has the goods on that "Sarah was unfaithful" rumor that floated around, or some other act of ethical impropriety. Perhaps she was threatened with "resign or I'm leaking this." And to protect her rep, her family, and the state caucus, she gave in.
Possibility 2: Self-indulgence. Maybe she just doesn't like being governor that much. Whether it's the daily drudgery of state administration, personnel decisions, negotiating with the legislature, or some other element of the job, maybe she just likes campaigning more than governing.
Possibility 3: Bad moon arising. Maybe Sarah knows or surmises something bad is coming down the pike for the State of Alaska (e.g., plummeting oil prices affecting the state budget), and wants to hand the hot potato (and the blame) to someone else.
Possibility 4: Feeling victimized. With political opponents putting her in the crosshairs, she's constantly being threatened with new ethics charges, and having raise money to defend herself. Maybe she wants to play the guerilla army and not the regulars for a change. Or, in other words, maybe she wants to go rogue. A woman scorned, etc. etc. [Update: see this story from the NY Post, which shows the type of "enemy" that Palin may be more interested in striking against than she is in her political career.]
Possibilty 5: Get paid. As reported in the Politico, "Leaving the governor’s office at the end of this month leaves her free to travel the country, command large speaking fees, and begin the process of rallying her devotees without pesky home-state opponents criticizing every move." Keeping buzz about a 2012 run high will also increase crowds and fees. [Update: Time points out it will also help her book sales]
Possibility 6: She's running for Senate in AK in 2010. If this were the case, it might make sense to get a head start now. But why wouldn't she announce that as her intention?
Mark Steyn wrote an empathetic entry at the Corner that explains why Sarah might have made the decision, "who needs this?" Basically, Steyn's point is that a normal person wouldn't want to undergo the vitriol that she has had to endure. And that, as a result, "National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss."
Probably a true statment, but not exactly a new phenomenon.
Sarah supporters are arguing that she can't effectively run in the lower 48 when she's stuck in Alaska, and that she could become the de facto spokesman for the national party if she was camped out in D.C. or another major media center. Still, I'm not sure that would counteract the bad image of Sarah that this resignation is reinforcing. As conservative blogger AC Kleinheider wrote: "Sarah Palin has now succeeded in becoming, if she was not already, pretty much everything her critics have accused her of being."
At the end of the day, I'm not really sure what's motivating Sarah at this point, but I agree with Steyn that, "as a political move for anything other than the 2010 Senate race, today's announcement is a disaster."
Ya had it all kid. And ya blew it.
My initial reaction was that this basically ends her as a potential Presidential candidate, for the exact reason GOP pollster Whit Ayers highlighted in this quote:
"If you're a serious politician and you're seriously interested in higher office, the best thing you can do is as good a job as possible in the current office," Ayers said. "I suppose it frees her from the responsibility of a full-time job. It does nothing to enhance the image she has that she's not material for the president of the United States."
Since Sarah already had pocket kings if she was running for the GOP nomination (Mitt and maybe Huck are the only Republicans with the name recognition and ready-made donor base that Sarah had), I have a hard time believing she's quitting to "build an organization" to run for President. She could have served out her term, not looked like a flake, and then started building her organization in late '10, in plenty of time for the '12 election. Yet I can't totally discount the fact that she's doing this for political reasons. It may just be a bad miscalculation. After all, Kristol hardly sounds convinced that she's abandoned hopes to run for President in 2012: "It's a huge gamble -- but some of her gambles have paid off in the past."
Still, it's a move that makes little to no sense for that purpose. So if she's not resigning for her national political ambitions, what then?
Possibility 1: Blackmail. Maybe someone has the goods on that "Sarah was unfaithful" rumor that floated around, or some other act of ethical impropriety. Perhaps she was threatened with "resign or I'm leaking this." And to protect her rep, her family, and the state caucus, she gave in.
Possibility 2: Self-indulgence. Maybe she just doesn't like being governor that much. Whether it's the daily drudgery of state administration, personnel decisions, negotiating with the legislature, or some other element of the job, maybe she just likes campaigning more than governing.
Possibility 3: Bad moon arising. Maybe Sarah knows or surmises something bad is coming down the pike for the State of Alaska (e.g., plummeting oil prices affecting the state budget), and wants to hand the hot potato (and the blame) to someone else.
Possibility 4: Feeling victimized. With political opponents putting her in the crosshairs, she's constantly being threatened with new ethics charges, and having raise money to defend herself. Maybe she wants to play the guerilla army and not the regulars for a change. Or, in other words, maybe she wants to go rogue. A woman scorned, etc. etc. [Update: see this story from the NY Post, which shows the type of "enemy" that Palin may be more interested in striking against than she is in her political career.]
Possibilty 5: Get paid. As reported in the Politico, "Leaving the governor’s office at the end of this month leaves her free to travel the country, command large speaking fees, and begin the process of rallying her devotees without pesky home-state opponents criticizing every move." Keeping buzz about a 2012 run high will also increase crowds and fees. [Update: Time points out it will also help her book sales]
Possibility 6: She's running for Senate in AK in 2010. If this were the case, it might make sense to get a head start now. But why wouldn't she announce that as her intention?
Mark Steyn wrote an empathetic entry at the Corner that explains why Sarah might have made the decision, "who needs this?" Basically, Steyn's point is that a normal person wouldn't want to undergo the vitriol that she has had to endure. And that, as a result, "National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss."
Probably a true statment, but not exactly a new phenomenon.
Sarah supporters are arguing that she can't effectively run in the lower 48 when she's stuck in Alaska, and that she could become the de facto spokesman for the national party if she was camped out in D.C. or another major media center. Still, I'm not sure that would counteract the bad image of Sarah that this resignation is reinforcing. As conservative blogger AC Kleinheider wrote: "Sarah Palin has now succeeded in becoming, if she was not already, pretty much everything her critics have accused her of being."
At the end of the day, I'm not really sure what's motivating Sarah at this point, but I agree with Steyn that, "as a political move for anything other than the 2010 Senate race, today's announcement is a disaster."
Ya had it all kid. And ya blew it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
