Let's add double-talking to the One's list of strengths
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
In the next two years, President Barack Obama may single-handedly destroy both the Democratic Party and the "progressive" movement in America. Democratic politicians who enjoy their office may be wise to start slowly distancing themselves from him sooner than later.
Oh sure, right now, Obama is enjoying pretty high approval numbers, and his speech Tuesday night may boost them higher. His oratory certainly ranks with the best of presidential speakers - Ronald Reagan comes to mind. And while talk may be cheap, cost of misusing words, especially for the POTUS, is very, very high. Obama has been abusing words. If Obama fails to walk on water like he has promised, the mob will turn on him. It always does.
Obama, as he proved Tuesday, is very adept at a) talking out of both sides of his mouth, b) saying one thing and doing another, and c) promising people they can have their cake and eat it too.
Let's see. Obama wants to cut military spending but increase the number of troops. Obama says he is against big government (snicker) but is proud to have done more to expand government in his first few weeks in office than any other president in history. Obama is going to raise taxes, but not yours. He is going to increase spending in every major social program in America, but cut the deficit. Obama says that his predecessor abused presidential privilege and the state-secret defense, and then his lawyers go and make the same case.
For as much as Obama talked about presidential power abuse by the Bush administration, he has done more to consolidate power under the White House in a few weeks than Bush did during his entire administration. The appointing of White House czars to short circuit traditional congressional oversight of the traditional cabinet-led agencies and departments comes to mind, as does Obama's bringing the census directly under his chief of staff.
Obama talks about transparency in government, and then pre-screens the reporters who will get to ask him questions at press conferences. And so on ...
You can get away with telling people one thing and doing something else for a while. In a good economy, you can get away with it for years. Just ask Bill Clinton. But Clinton's triangulation was Albert Einstein-smart compared to Obama's two-faced Alfred E. Neuman-dumb deceptions. But Obama has neither Clinton's skill or luck.
Some hard-core Obama supporters - like the folks at The New York Times who alternatively fantasize about having an adulterous affair with the president or mix him up with Garry Gasparov - are still holding out hope that Obama has a grand plan. They hope he isn't just keeping everyone distracted with bread and circuses hoping that everything will just come out all right in the end.
Obama may have the smarts to run Harvard Law Review and organize communities, but his opponents' complaints about his inexperience are ringing true. The start of the Obama administration has become the amateur hour that never ends. Obama's campaign was based on a promise that he was the smart guy who could fix the Bush mess. Obama's core supporters (like Bush's core supporters) will never leave him, but its Republicans, moderate Democrats and independents who voted for Obama because they liked his temperate manner and Ivy League style are going to be first in line to string him up if the Bush mess doesn't get fixed.
Obama is not going to get to point back and say, "It's Bush's fault" because he sold himself to America as the W. repair man. Obama didn't inherit the Bush mess. Instead, he embraced it in the Democratic primaries, and bought it by running for and winning the presidency. It's his mess now.
The smart money is already betting against Obama. Wall Street has cast its vote on Obama's plan to resurrect the American economy. (The Dow continues to fall, no matter what the borrow-billions-to-fix-it-plan-de jour is.) Many in the news media are already smelling blood in the water, which as you know attracts sharks. Sen. Robert Byrd, DW.Va., whose ability to politically survive is evidenced by his life journey from being associated with the Klan to becoming a senior Democratic voice in the Senate, is the first major Democrat to challenge the Obama overreach.
More will follow.
Obama's two strategic blunders - trying to be all things to all people, and trying to force change too fast - will cost his party dearly in 2010. Americans, like most people, are less resistant to change if it is administered piecemeal, not crammed down our national throat like a brick through the esophagus. I thought he was smart enough to slow cook the proverbial frog instead of throwing us live into boiling water.
If you don't believe one man's reputation can cut a party down to size, just cast your eyes on Bush.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor for the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Upsides of the downside
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
First of all, while I am pretty confident the recently enacted stimulus legislation will not be the cause of a resurgent American economy, I hope I am wrong. May the stimulus bring untold prosperity to America, that we may pay off the new debt of $1 trillion worth of principal and interest quickly, so that we do not fill the economic galoshes of our children with proverbial cement and toss them into the nearest financial lake.
I truly hope President Obama succeeds in bringing abundant health to our economy in spite of himself.
Now that I have that confessional out of the way, let's talk about what happens if the economy doesn't turn around under Obama's watch. Are there any upsides to a continued downside in a post-stimulated world? For Obama's and the Democrat-controlled Congress' enemies, absolutely! Even the politically disconnected American can find silver linings in the downturn cloud.
Let's look at how conservatives and Republicans politically benefit:
1. The stimulus bill is a - forgive the crassness - crap sandwich, and the American people don't like having crap shoved down their throats. The votes of three RINO senators aside, the Democrats own this crap sandwich.
Even if the economy turns around, the Democrats are not going to be punished in hundreds of House races and a few Senate races in 2010 for the nonstimulus spending in the bill. There is enough "pork" in the bill to make dozens of zinger commercials. Something like: "Your Democratic representative voted to force your children to pay hundreds of millions for condoms is the stimulus bill. Don't like borrowing billions for government waste? Vote Republican." Or even better: "Do you know what we paid for in the $1 trillion stimulus bill? Neither did your Democratic representative when she voted for it. Why should we pay her six figures to sign off on wasteful bills she doesn't read? Vote Republican instead." This stuff really writes itself.
The only way the Democrats avoid a political fallout in 2010 is if everyone who is underwater on their mortgages is suddenly back in the chips and the Dow is back over 14,000. If there is no significant turnaround, the Democrats could see their congressional gains in 2006 and 2008 erased.
Writes Roll Call's Stuart Rothenberg, "The underlying weakness in the economy, and the crucial growing pessimism both in financial circles and the country at large, will certainly take a political toll on some officeholders in the near term. The public will want its scapegoat before the end of the year if no economic turnaround appears."
2. Economy-killing carbon-cap scams are off the table for now. The left-wingers in America, who now own the Democratic Party, have always used scare-mongering to try to push their "progress." Global warming alarmism was the scare de jour when the good times were rolling, as Kyotoinspired cap-and-trade scams which would kill the economy were being pushed by Al Gore and his minions.
The Obama administration is going to be friendly to the climate change alarmists, but even though the great scientific consensus has told Obama he has four years to fix the carbon problem or else we can kiss this world goodbye, Obama is likely not going to implement any crazy cap-and-trade carbon policy. Why? Because Obama doesn't need global warming to scare people into submitting to his will; he has the bad economy.
Trust me, Obama is going to work to fix the economy before he "saves" the Earth from global warming. "Saving" the Earth Gore-style will certainly hurt the economy. So conservatives can take comfort from this bright spot in a bad economy: At least we don't have to be force-fed global warming crap along with stimulus crap.
3. Because no economy in the world has escaped the suffering, the recession is not an indictment of American-style capitalism. World economies of all sorts are feeling the pain. Socialist Europe, communist China and even totalitarian Russia are getting squeezed. When the economy first started tanking, left-wing journalists starting writing obituaries for capitalism. Now that we see that the whole economic world is burning, we know those obits are premature.
4. Housing is affordable again. I submit that bubble bursting is, in the long run, good for America. In the past decade we've seen two very unhealthy bubbles: tech and housing. Now we know that the sooner the bubbles burst, the better. Housing prices were unsustainable. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that. Young people starting out in life with two incomes weren't even able to afford to buy a meager house in many parts of America. Now housing prices are much more reasonable.
5. Oil prices make sense again. The slowing economy has crimped demand for oil, causing supply to build up and prices to drop. Amazing how the laws of supply and demand seem to correct them. If the economy had never tanked, gas would still be north of $4 a gallon and we'd still be shipping billions of dollars to Middle Eastern nations to help fund their proxy wars against us.
6. Wal-Mart is cool again. I've always been a Wal-Mart fan, and hated to see the smiley face so maligned during much of the good times of the middle Bush years. The company suffered from a negative PR campaign by its union and other left-wing enemies during the good times. Target was wired; Wal-Mart tired. Funny thing about hard economic times - they force people to drop the bull and look at the fundamental truths. In this case, Wal-Mart's "evil" ways help make the necessities of life cheaper. The message hasn't been lost on America, which has helped the retailer enjoy record sales.
Wal-Mart's savings is also bipartisan. They'll take your business if you are a Democrat or a Republican. And better yet, the sort of help Wal-Mart is giving Americans doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime of bailout or stimulus borrowed money.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor for the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
By Lucas Roebuck
First of all, while I am pretty confident the recently enacted stimulus legislation will not be the cause of a resurgent American economy, I hope I am wrong. May the stimulus bring untold prosperity to America, that we may pay off the new debt of $1 trillion worth of principal and interest quickly, so that we do not fill the economic galoshes of our children with proverbial cement and toss them into the nearest financial lake.
I truly hope President Obama succeeds in bringing abundant health to our economy in spite of himself.
Now that I have that confessional out of the way, let's talk about what happens if the economy doesn't turn around under Obama's watch. Are there any upsides to a continued downside in a post-stimulated world? For Obama's and the Democrat-controlled Congress' enemies, absolutely! Even the politically disconnected American can find silver linings in the downturn cloud.
Let's look at how conservatives and Republicans politically benefit:
1. The stimulus bill is a - forgive the crassness - crap sandwich, and the American people don't like having crap shoved down their throats. The votes of three RINO senators aside, the Democrats own this crap sandwich.
Even if the economy turns around, the Democrats are not going to be punished in hundreds of House races and a few Senate races in 2010 for the nonstimulus spending in the bill. There is enough "pork" in the bill to make dozens of zinger commercials. Something like: "Your Democratic representative voted to force your children to pay hundreds of millions for condoms is the stimulus bill. Don't like borrowing billions for government waste? Vote Republican." Or even better: "Do you know what we paid for in the $1 trillion stimulus bill? Neither did your Democratic representative when she voted for it. Why should we pay her six figures to sign off on wasteful bills she doesn't read? Vote Republican instead." This stuff really writes itself.
The only way the Democrats avoid a political fallout in 2010 is if everyone who is underwater on their mortgages is suddenly back in the chips and the Dow is back over 14,000. If there is no significant turnaround, the Democrats could see their congressional gains in 2006 and 2008 erased.
Writes Roll Call's Stuart Rothenberg, "The underlying weakness in the economy, and the crucial growing pessimism both in financial circles and the country at large, will certainly take a political toll on some officeholders in the near term. The public will want its scapegoat before the end of the year if no economic turnaround appears."
2. Economy-killing carbon-cap scams are off the table for now. The left-wingers in America, who now own the Democratic Party, have always used scare-mongering to try to push their "progress." Global warming alarmism was the scare de jour when the good times were rolling, as Kyotoinspired cap-and-trade scams which would kill the economy were being pushed by Al Gore and his minions.
The Obama administration is going to be friendly to the climate change alarmists, but even though the great scientific consensus has told Obama he has four years to fix the carbon problem or else we can kiss this world goodbye, Obama is likely not going to implement any crazy cap-and-trade carbon policy. Why? Because Obama doesn't need global warming to scare people into submitting to his will; he has the bad economy.
Trust me, Obama is going to work to fix the economy before he "saves" the Earth from global warming. "Saving" the Earth Gore-style will certainly hurt the economy. So conservatives can take comfort from this bright spot in a bad economy: At least we don't have to be force-fed global warming crap along with stimulus crap.
3. Because no economy in the world has escaped the suffering, the recession is not an indictment of American-style capitalism. World economies of all sorts are feeling the pain. Socialist Europe, communist China and even totalitarian Russia are getting squeezed. When the economy first started tanking, left-wing journalists starting writing obituaries for capitalism. Now that we see that the whole economic world is burning, we know those obits are premature.
4. Housing is affordable again. I submit that bubble bursting is, in the long run, good for America. In the past decade we've seen two very unhealthy bubbles: tech and housing. Now we know that the sooner the bubbles burst, the better. Housing prices were unsustainable. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew that. Young people starting out in life with two incomes weren't even able to afford to buy a meager house in many parts of America. Now housing prices are much more reasonable.
5. Oil prices make sense again. The slowing economy has crimped demand for oil, causing supply to build up and prices to drop. Amazing how the laws of supply and demand seem to correct them. If the economy had never tanked, gas would still be north of $4 a gallon and we'd still be shipping billions of dollars to Middle Eastern nations to help fund their proxy wars against us.
6. Wal-Mart is cool again. I've always been a Wal-Mart fan, and hated to see the smiley face so maligned during much of the good times of the middle Bush years. The company suffered from a negative PR campaign by its union and other left-wing enemies during the good times. Target was wired; Wal-Mart tired. Funny thing about hard economic times - they force people to drop the bull and look at the fundamental truths. In this case, Wal-Mart's "evil" ways help make the necessities of life cheaper. The message hasn't been lost on America, which has helped the retailer enjoy record sales.
Wal-Mart's savings is also bipartisan. They'll take your business if you are a Democrat or a Republican. And better yet, the sort of help Wal-Mart is giving Americans doesn't cost the taxpayer a dime of bailout or stimulus borrowed money.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor for the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Popular vote plan a shot in the foot
Hatchet
By Lucas Roebuck
True to the Chicago Way, Obama and his merry band of Democrats are using their newfound partisan advantage to increase their control and get a tighter grip on power in Washington, often at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent.
The stimulus bill is mostly just borrowing money from our grandchildren to give cash to the people who fund Democratic campaigns. President Obama's decision to move the census, which decides how many representatives each state gets, away from the Commerce Department and under the White House roof is a new form of gerrymandering to make sure Democrats have an unfair advantage in the House of Representatives. Finally, a grassroots Democratic movement - which has come to Arkansas this week - is an attempt to short-circuit the Constitution itself by undermining the great constitutional compromise to favor the more populous, left-leaning states.
State Rep. Eddie Cooper, D-Melbourne, introduced a bill that will go to a full vote in the Arkansas House this week or next that would pledge Arkansas' electors to whomever wins the national vote.
Besides being a blatant power grab for Democrats (who enjoy fat loyalty margins in America's populous urban centers) if Cooper's idea becomes law, Arkansas basically would be giving up all its say in who becomes president. Small states - whose interests are protected by the Electoral College - will get steamrolled should people like Cooper get their way.
Americans got a civics lesson in 2000 reminding us that it's not the national popular vote total that matters, but rather who wins what states that determines the president. For the Democrats, who lost the White House, the lesson was bitter. Unfortunately, Democrats like Cooper and other state legislators across the country who are trying to bypass the Constitution and centralize power need a history lesson to go with the civics lesson. They have forgotten the constitutional compromise.
In forming our representative government, the framers had to face this question: How do we decide how much say each state has in the affairs of our national government? The smaller states said that each state should have one vote in Congress. That seems fair, right? One state, one vote? Not so fast, said the larger, more populous states. We have more people, so we should have more say. The small states were worried if direct proportional representation were implemented, then their needs and issues would be pushed by the interests of the larger states. The new constitution was at an impasse.
Then came the compromise, which is seen first in how our national legislature is composed. Two houses would have to approve all laws - one that had direct proportional representation (the House) and one in which each state was represented equally (the Senate).
But what about the executive branch? How could the new nation be sure that a president wouldn't just act in the interest of the large population centers? The constitutional compromise was applied to the executive branch as well: Each state would have a say in the election of president that was the same as their representation in Congress - a proportional number of electors like the House plus two electors like the Senate. Even with the compromise, it still takes dozens of small states to equal the population power of states like California and New York.
While he claims, according to press reports, that forcing our electors to go the way of the national popular vote winner will bring more political attention to Arkansas, Cooper's plan emaciates Arkansas' influence in the presidential selection process. Cooper wants to draw more presidential political candidates to Arkansas (which, by the way, hasn't really been a problem).
In 2000, Arkansas voted for George W. Bush. Under Cooper's plan, even though the majority of Arkansans wanted Bush to win and voted for him, they would have been forced to vote for Gore.
Hopefully, this national power grab by the Democrats masquerading as populism will die in the Arkansas House.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor for the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
By Lucas Roebuck
True to the Chicago Way, Obama and his merry band of Democrats are using their newfound partisan advantage to increase their control and get a tighter grip on power in Washington, often at the expense of the people they are supposed to represent.
The stimulus bill is mostly just borrowing money from our grandchildren to give cash to the people who fund Democratic campaigns. President Obama's decision to move the census, which decides how many representatives each state gets, away from the Commerce Department and under the White House roof is a new form of gerrymandering to make sure Democrats have an unfair advantage in the House of Representatives. Finally, a grassroots Democratic movement - which has come to Arkansas this week - is an attempt to short-circuit the Constitution itself by undermining the great constitutional compromise to favor the more populous, left-leaning states.
State Rep. Eddie Cooper, D-Melbourne, introduced a bill that will go to a full vote in the Arkansas House this week or next that would pledge Arkansas' electors to whomever wins the national vote.
Besides being a blatant power grab for Democrats (who enjoy fat loyalty margins in America's populous urban centers) if Cooper's idea becomes law, Arkansas basically would be giving up all its say in who becomes president. Small states - whose interests are protected by the Electoral College - will get steamrolled should people like Cooper get their way.
Americans got a civics lesson in 2000 reminding us that it's not the national popular vote total that matters, but rather who wins what states that determines the president. For the Democrats, who lost the White House, the lesson was bitter. Unfortunately, Democrats like Cooper and other state legislators across the country who are trying to bypass the Constitution and centralize power need a history lesson to go with the civics lesson. They have forgotten the constitutional compromise.
In forming our representative government, the framers had to face this question: How do we decide how much say each state has in the affairs of our national government? The smaller states said that each state should have one vote in Congress. That seems fair, right? One state, one vote? Not so fast, said the larger, more populous states. We have more people, so we should have more say. The small states were worried if direct proportional representation were implemented, then their needs and issues would be pushed by the interests of the larger states. The new constitution was at an impasse.
Then came the compromise, which is seen first in how our national legislature is composed. Two houses would have to approve all laws - one that had direct proportional representation (the House) and one in which each state was represented equally (the Senate).
But what about the executive branch? How could the new nation be sure that a president wouldn't just act in the interest of the large population centers? The constitutional compromise was applied to the executive branch as well: Each state would have a say in the election of president that was the same as their representation in Congress - a proportional number of electors like the House plus two electors like the Senate. Even with the compromise, it still takes dozens of small states to equal the population power of states like California and New York.
While he claims, according to press reports, that forcing our electors to go the way of the national popular vote winner will bring more political attention to Arkansas, Cooper's plan emaciates Arkansas' influence in the presidential selection process. Cooper wants to draw more presidential political candidates to Arkansas (which, by the way, hasn't really been a problem).
In 2000, Arkansas voted for George W. Bush. Under Cooper's plan, even though the majority of Arkansans wanted Bush to win and voted for him, they would have been forced to vote for Gore.
Hopefully, this national power grab by the Democrats masquerading as populism will die in the Arkansas House.
Lucas Roebuck is a former managing editor for the Northwest Arkansas Times and the Siloam Springs Herald-Leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
