Friday, February 16, 2007
Congress: Positively Un-American
Well, it's about to pass folks! "It" is the long-awaited non-binding resolution opposing the President's troop surge in Iraq. It looks like Congress has "come together in the spirit of bipartisanship" (in the mealy-mouthed voice of Harry Reid) to "express it's opinion" by each member "standing up and being counted." After all, that's what the American people want...for Congress to take a stand.....by expressing it's opinion.
If the polls are to be believed, then the American people want to pull out of Iraq. They also don't support the troop surge. So, Congressional Dems and some Republicans have decided that they will do what the people want.
Except, no...that's not what they're doing. They're not opposing anything. They're not pulling out or stopping the surge. Why? Because they believe it's political suicide. They frankly don't have the conjones to do what they claim the country wants. No, instead they're going to pass a non-binding resolution, claiming it "supports the trooops" but disagrees with the President's decision to send them into a war zone. Huh? How does that work? They're saying "we support you, but we don't support your mission nor your Commander-in-Chief!" How do you think that comes across to the reservist about to deploy? Not so well, I think.
I also think such a resolution is not just a bad idea, it's unpatritoic. That's right, unpatriotic. I said it. Despite what you may hear about conservatives, I don't know a single one that feels opposing the war on principle is unpatriotic. And I certainly wouldn't be saying that if Congress passed a binding resolution calling for withdrawal, or a timeline for withdrawal, or denying funds for the surge. As much as I disagree with that position, at least it would be intellectually honest. At least it would be honorable. But this non-binding resolution is a terrible thing. It's far worse than pulling out, or denying funds. It's worse because the President, exercising his authority as Commander-in-Chief, has put troops into harm's way. Agree or disagree, that's his decision. And Congress? They're sending a clear message that they don't really want those troops there....but they're also not going to pull them out, as they could do. Pull them out or don't. Don't undermine both the troops and the President.
It's dishonorable. It's pure political rangling. It's pointless. And it's Un-American.
SDW
If the polls are to be believed, then the American people want to pull out of Iraq. They also don't support the troop surge. So, Congressional Dems and some Republicans have decided that they will do what the people want.
Except, no...that's not what they're doing. They're not opposing anything. They're not pulling out or stopping the surge. Why? Because they believe it's political suicide. They frankly don't have the conjones to do what they claim the country wants. No, instead they're going to pass a non-binding resolution, claiming it "supports the trooops" but disagrees with the President's decision to send them into a war zone. Huh? How does that work? They're saying "we support you, but we don't support your mission nor your Commander-in-Chief!" How do you think that comes across to the reservist about to deploy? Not so well, I think.
I also think such a resolution is not just a bad idea, it's unpatritoic. That's right, unpatriotic. I said it. Despite what you may hear about conservatives, I don't know a single one that feels opposing the war on principle is unpatriotic. And I certainly wouldn't be saying that if Congress passed a binding resolution calling for withdrawal, or a timeline for withdrawal, or denying funds for the surge. As much as I disagree with that position, at least it would be intellectually honest. At least it would be honorable. But this non-binding resolution is a terrible thing. It's far worse than pulling out, or denying funds. It's worse because the President, exercising his authority as Commander-in-Chief, has put troops into harm's way. Agree or disagree, that's his decision. And Congress? They're sending a clear message that they don't really want those troops there....but they're also not going to pull them out, as they could do. Pull them out or don't. Don't undermine both the troops and the President.
It's dishonorable. It's pure political rangling. It's pointless. And it's Un-American.
SDW
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Obama: Where's the Beef?
Let me first say I don't have anything against Barack Obama. Well OK, that's not entirely true. I don't like his positions. He's far too liberal for my tastes. But I'm putting that aside for a moment. It's not the issue here. Secondly, I'm going to put aside Obama's recent comment that 3,000 American lives were "wasted" because we invaded Iraq. I think military members and their families may be offended by that comment, but my feeling it was a slip of the tongue. He also apologized right away.
So what's the issue? No, it's not that he's a Democrat. It's that while he's praised as a "breath of fresh air" and a a political maverick of sorts, he's nothing of the kind. He's inexperienced. He's served two years in the Senate and has zero executive experience. His speeches are filled with endlessly repeated platitudes about Hope and Taking Back America. That's just the start.
In his official announcment speech, Obama said this:
There it is. That's really Obama's entire speech. Let's boil it down further:
Hmmm. Anything new there? It sounds like every Democratic candidate's stump speech since Carter. Yes, Obama, we know the Dems want Universal Health Care. Nevermind that you're pretending Americans have a Constituional right to health care. Nevermind the staggering cost. We already spend $350 billion a year on medicare alone. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
You're anti-war, Obama. I guess there is at least some consistency in that position, whereas Hillary "Rodham" Clinton (sounds presidential, right?) and others have flip-flopped on this issue more than a half-dead tuna. But it's nothing new, and he's offered no real alternative other than getting out. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing new.
You want the government to spread the wealth. You use the tired and rather infuriating (to me) cliche' that "all Americans who work hard and play by the rules should have a decent living standard." Huh? Where does it say that? But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing new.
You want broadband internet for the poor. Sound familiar? Don't you ever wonder what the "universal access" charges and federal taxes (which are up to 30% of your phone bill) are for? That's right! Bill Clinton did the same thing. Now we want more money...because dial-up isn't good enough. After all...HDTV is next. Students can't learn without that! The poor should have equal access to the New Media Age! Do you think that Obama would be willing to subsidize my $156 Comcast bill, a 2/3 of which is phone and internet? Probably not. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing new!
You want to hire more teachers and pay them better. OK, fine. I'm a teacher, and I think both of those are needed things in most parts of the country (pay is frankly not an issue in Suburban Philadelphia, but let's put that aside). But how is he going to do that? You'd need to increase the Federal Education budget by tens of billions. You'd need to mandate better standards (and by better, I don't mean tougher, I mean SANE). And how do you propose to raise student achievement? The NCLB needs work, take it from me. But what do you propose, Obama? But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing new!
You want better retirement too. Here we go again, more standard Democratic rhetoric. Social Security is their Holy Grail of issues. And of course, the Republicans want to destroy it! This tactic has been working for 50 years, and they're still using it. I won't even get into the fact that retirement is a relatively new concept historically speaking. No one deserves to retire because they "follow the rules." But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Wait for it....wait for it...can I get a "Nothing New?"
So what do we have here? We have an inexperienced, nice looking well-spoken black man (almost!) who seems to have the support generated by a Cult of Personality. We don't have someone with new ideas. We have the same liberal platform. And of course, the liberal media has ordained him the Jesus Christ of the Democratic Party.
But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
SDW
So what's the issue? No, it's not that he's a Democrat. It's that while he's praised as a "breath of fresh air" and a a political maverick of sorts, he's nothing of the kind. He's inexperienced. He's served two years in the Senate and has zero executive experience. His speeches are filled with endlessly repeated platitudes about Hope and Taking Back America. That's just the start.
In his official announcment speech, Obama said this:
"Let us be the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age. Let's set high standards for our schools and give them the resources they need to succeed. Let's recruit a new army of teachers, and give them better pay and more support in exchange for more accountability. Let's make college more affordable, and let's invest in scientific research, and let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.
And as our economy changes, let's be the generation that ensures our nation's workers are sharing in our prosperity. Let's protect the hard-earned benefits their companies have promised. Let's make it possible for hardworking Americans to save for retirement. And let's allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country's middle-class again.
Let's be the generation that ends poverty in America. Every single person willing to work should be able to get job training that leads to a job, and earn a living wage that can pay the bills, and afford child care so their kids have a safe place to go when they work. Let's do this.
Let's be the generation that finally tackles our health care crisis. We can control costs by focusing on prevention, by providing better treatment to the chronically ill, and using technology to cut the bureaucracy. Let's be the generation that says right here, right now, that we will have universal health care in America by the end of the next president's first term."
There it is. That's really Obama's entire speech. Let's boil it down further:
- Universal Health Care
- Anti-war
- Government created prosperity
- Broadband internet for the poor
- Hire more teachers, pay them better, raise student achievement
- Guaranteed comfortable retirement regardless of income or ability to work
Hmmm. Anything new there? It sounds like every Democratic candidate's stump speech since Carter. Yes, Obama, we know the Dems want Universal Health Care. Nevermind that you're pretending Americans have a Constituional right to health care. Nevermind the staggering cost. We already spend $350 billion a year on medicare alone. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
You're anti-war, Obama. I guess there is at least some consistency in that position, whereas Hillary "Rodham" Clinton (sounds presidential, right?) and others have flip-flopped on this issue more than a half-dead tuna. But it's nothing new, and he's offered no real alternative other than getting out. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing new.
You want the government to spread the wealth. You use the tired and rather infuriating (to me) cliche' that "all Americans who work hard and play by the rules should have a decent living standard." Huh? Where does it say that? But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing new.
You want broadband internet for the poor. Sound familiar? Don't you ever wonder what the "universal access" charges and federal taxes (which are up to 30% of your phone bill) are for? That's right! Bill Clinton did the same thing. Now we want more money...because dial-up isn't good enough. After all...HDTV is next. Students can't learn without that! The poor should have equal access to the New Media Age! Do you think that Obama would be willing to subsidize my $156 Comcast bill, a 2/3 of which is phone and internet? Probably not. But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing new!
You want to hire more teachers and pay them better. OK, fine. I'm a teacher, and I think both of those are needed things in most parts of the country (pay is frankly not an issue in Suburban Philadelphia, but let's put that aside). But how is he going to do that? You'd need to increase the Federal Education budget by tens of billions. You'd need to mandate better standards (and by better, I don't mean tougher, I mean SANE). And how do you propose to raise student achievement? The NCLB needs work, take it from me. But what do you propose, Obama? But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Nothing new!
You want better retirement too. Here we go again, more standard Democratic rhetoric. Social Security is their Holy Grail of issues. And of course, the Republicans want to destroy it! This tactic has been working for 50 years, and they're still using it. I won't even get into the fact that retirement is a relatively new concept historically speaking. No one deserves to retire because they "follow the rules." But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Wait for it....wait for it...can I get a "Nothing New?"
So what do we have here? We have an inexperienced, nice looking well-spoken black man (almost!) who seems to have the support generated by a Cult of Personality. We don't have someone with new ideas. We have the same liberal platform. And of course, the liberal media has ordained him the Jesus Christ of the Democratic Party.
But I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
SDW
