Just Another Blog

We all know what kind of campaign Barack Obama has been running. He stands for The Future and Change! He's running a "new" kind of campaign filled with Hope for All! He's rejecting the politics of old!

But Obama isn't. I submit that Barack Obama is another Carter, another Mondale, another Dukakis and even another LBJ. In a recent speech, Obama said: We can't expect to drive our SUVs as much as we want and eat as much as we want and keep our homes at 72 degrees and expect the rest of the world to be OK with it.

Of course, the audience applauded wildly as I thought to myself "what is wrong with these people?" The message here and in other Obama speeches seems to be reminiscent of LBJ's "we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people" comment. It seems to evoke thoughts of Carter's "national malaise" speech. It brings back thoughts of Dukakis's weakness on crime and of Mondale's pledge to raise taxes. And it reminds one of Senator Fulbright's notions that the Constitution it outmoded and that our system of individual freedoms cannot solve the complex problems of today.

The message is not optimistic, but unbelievably pessimistic. What is he really saying here? Here's what it seems like to me:

Americans must accept that we have too much in this country. We've lead lives of excess for 30 years, and now we come to accept that the world will not tolerate us anymore. We must learn to do with less. Less food, less oil, smaller houses, smaller cars and smaller lives. We must join the global community and accept that we cannot continue to use as much of the planet's resources as we do. We must do with less.

Moreover, Americans must look to government to solve their problems. Americans cannot solve the issues of health care, gas prices and the credit crunch without the government getting involved or even taking over these areas. We must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. We need the government to break us out of this national malaise.

In Iraq, we must have peace at any price. If we pull back now, we can achieve detente with the terrorists. We should just admit that the war is an utter failure and was started by lying liars and that we wasted 4,000 lives and 500 billion dollars.

In my judgment, this is the speech Obama really keeps giving. How is that "hope?" It might be "change," but is it change for the better? Of course not. I for one reject all those notions. I further propose that McCain gives his own speech, one that is truly optimistic and hopeful:

My fellow Americans,

My opponent has suggested that we have too much. He thinks we must accept a future where our children have less than we do. And why? Because we have too much already. We're too successful, and now we must pay for it. That's my opponent's position, but it's not mine.

I say that we declare that we want more for our children, not less. We want better housing, better food, better security, better health care and better financial success. We should declare that we, as Americans, can solve any problem. We can become energy independent and energy efficient. We can win the war in Iraq. We can defeat terrorism. We can solve health care, the credit crunch and the national debt. We can have all of that. And why shouldn't we think those things. After all, we're Americans. We defeated Hilter. We went to the moon. We won the Cold War. We unleashed technological and economic growth the likes of which the world has never seen. And we did it without national health care, green taxes, carbon credits, mortgage bailouts and setting a date for defeat in war. We did it because we're Americans, and that's what we do.

Wow..that kind of makes on miss Ronald Reagan more than ever, doesn't it? The problem, of course, is that Barack Obama doesn't understand the notion of American Exceptionalism. If he does, he derides it instead of embracing it. To Obama, we're the world's fat bully, and he wants to slim us down. But we know we're not that, even if we do make our mistakes. And McCain? He's not Reagan. He'll probably never give that speech.

But at least he's not Barack Obama.

Just a quick one here. Have you heard? Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have sent a letter to the President informing him that the troop surge has failed. Then they talked about that same "fact" publicly.

Of course, even opponents of the troops surge realize that it has only just gotten up to full strength, and it is too early to tell whether it has accomplished the goals the President intended.

And let's not forget: We have boots on the ground. We have troops fighting, bleeding, sweating and dying for their country right NOW, as we speak. And Pelosi and Reid just told them they've failed. This gets more American troops killed. Terrorist forces that want us out of Iraq know that the more troops they kill, the more Reid will declare defeat and ask for a pullout. It's like handing the insurgents victory on a silver platter. It's one thing to discuss turning over security responsibility to the Iraqis, but...Jesus. Worst of all, it's politically motivated, just as it was when Clinton and Obama voted against the emergency funding bill (and Clinton voted to send those same troops into harm's way).

But wait! If you order now, there's still more. Reid also was overheard earlier in the week, as he spoke to a liberal group. He was heard talking about how Generals Peter Pace (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and David Patraeus (unanimously confirmed by the Senate as commander of American forces in Iraq) were incompetent! The pandering and intellectual dishonesty is beyond disgusting.

And this is all because the Democrats don't have the cojones to end the war with a straight vote. It's all politics. They need the Left for the primaries. But since they can't and won't keep their promise of ending the war, they'll pander and play political games. The problem is this time, the pawns are the troops in the field.

SDW

The immigration bill debate is about to enter Round II, and the Washington Politicians are continuing to miss the point. Today Trent Lott said this:

The Republican whip, Trent Lott of Mississippi, who supports the bill, said: “Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem.”

At some point, Mr. Lott said, Senate Republican leaders may try to rein in “younger guys who are huffing and puffing against the bill."

Ding! Another Republican Senator on my shit list. Once again Trent: We tell YOU what to do. We ARE talk radio. Without US, there would be no Limbaugh and Sean Hannity.

Had enough? I have. I don't know about you, but I think the problem is that CONGRESS is allowed to run the country.

SDW

And we’re back. Days after I wrote about my dissatisfaction with President Bush over the immigration bill (and many other things), the immigration bill “died.” Yippee.

But wait…I’m not happy. Not at all. Don’t get me wrong, I’m thrilled that the bill died. It was going to make the immigration problem worse, not better. It was needlessly complicated. It didn’t do enough to address border security. You’ve heard the list of criticisms, so I won’t reiterate them further.

During the first “debate” (if it can even be called that), I took issue with Lindsey Graham’s statement that “this bill may be our only and last chance to get something done” or something to that effect. I thought that was outrageous. The message was that we, the people should just suck it up and accept this disaster of a piece of legislation, because it was the best we were going to do. That was infuriating. We give the orders around here, Senator. Not you, or your colleagues. We tell you what to do. If we’re not happy, you have to "suck it up" and come up with something better. That’s how it works—or is supposed to work, in America.

When the bill was about to die, Harry Reid absurdly declared that if the bill fails, the headline will read “another failure for the President. This is the President’s bill!” But now Congress has gone even further. Soon the headline will read: Immigration…it’s baaaaccckk!”

And Congress has already begun its total misunderstanding and arrogant presumption as to how our system should work. This week, Dianne Feinstein said that “talk show hosts” are drumming up their audiences, angering them and causing them to write “racist” e-mails and make phone calls to her office (and others’ offices). According to Feinstein, she hadn’t seen such anger and “racist” feedback in her 15 years in office.

Oh, I see. The hundreds of thousands of Americans writing their reps in opposition to the bill (and by most accounts, the feedback was at least 90% against it) are now racists. And irrational. And possibly uneducated fools Nice!

Of course, this is the very definition of elitism. As Ronald Reagan once said “[a little intellectual elite cannot plan our lives better than we can plan them ourselves…]” Yet, that’s exactly what Ms. Feinstein and company (read: both parties in Congress”) are doing. They know better than we do. All who oppose them and their ridiculous proposals are “racists”. We’re a bunch of hicks, at least according to some "moderate" Republicans and the likes of Teddy Kennedy and Ms. Feinstien.

If only we understood the complexities. First, we heard “read the bill.” Then we did, and we opposed it more than ever. Then it was “it’s not amnesty.” Then we showed that not only was it amnesty, it didn’t even address border security first. Then we were told the bill wasn’t “ideal” and in the words of Senator McCain “it isn’t the bill I would have written.”…but we should support it anyway because it was the best we peons could expect. Gotcha.

But we won. The bill died. And we’ll win again. We’ll win the debate of ideas by sending this message:

"Dear Congress:

Here is what we want. Please do it, or we’ll vote you out, thereby giving you an “education” as to how our system works. "

1. Seal the border first. Really seal it. With a fence. And barbed wire. And technological surveillance. And border patrol agents that are allowed to do their jobs.

2. AFTER #1, we want you to address the people already here. They will be required to register with Homeland Security within 1 year. They will be given a tamper proof ID card. They will pay taxes. If they commit crimes (3 misdemeanors or one felony) they’re gone. No social services for them. Fail to register? You go home. Forever.

3. All guest workers who want to be citizens go to the back of the line. If they cannot prove they came here legally top begin with, they pay a $5,000 fine. Both legal and illegal immigrants will be required to learn English to become citizens.

4. We want a federal law prohibiting communities from NOT enforcing federal immigration laws. We can ask anyone to prove they are legal. If they’re not, they get reported and deported.

5. Fine employers of illegals to the tune of $100,000 per worker with a maximum $10,000,000 fine. Three offenses and the offending employer goes to jail.

That’s what most Americans want, Congress. We’re not racists. We’re not stupid. We want meaningful reform. We recognize the contributions many illegals make and most of us realize you can’t deport them all. We just want the border secured. We want laws enforced. We want you to stop lecturing us. We're supposed to lecture you. After all, we're in charge. You might do well the learn that.

SDW

I don’t know how much longer I can hold out.

Really, I don’t. What am I talking about? My support of the Republican Party and President George W. Bush. Losing power! Must go on. Must...go...on. Mu---

I was a Bush voter in 2000 and 2004. In fact, I was an enthusiastic Bush voter both times. I have voted Republican in most elections, with some exceptions including casting a vote for Ed Rendell in 2002 (that was rectified last year, I assure you). I supported the Iraq War. I supported the President’s tax cuts. I support the PATRIOT Act, warrantless wiretaps and more. I can’t stand the Left’s defeatism and calls for surrender. They savage the President…and it’s wrong. But:

I, like a great many other conservatives, am mad as hell. I will never become a Bush-hater or say that I regret my vote, because I don’t. But the immigration bill and Bush’s rhetoric about the people that oppose it (or “the opposers” as Bush might say) really jerked my chain, so to speak. “They don’t want to do what’s right for America?” What? As Peggy Noonan basically said, it seems Bush is trying to piss off the remaining 30% of the public that supports him.

The immigration bill represented the final fall of the curtain. Behind it lay the real George Bush, the one who is actually a liberal on everything except war and tax cuts. Spending is out of control. The immigration bill is a one thousand page disaster (and I’m fairly liberal on immigration)! Gone is the swaggering, confident Bush who promised to get Osama “dead or alive” and gave the middle digit to France and Germany when we invaded Iraq. Gone is More Tax Reform Bush. Gone is Reform Social Security Bush. Gone is Cut Spending Bush, even if he ever existed. Instead he’s been replaced by Post-Katrina Bush, his not evil but much more subdued twin.

In fact, it was right around the time Katrina struck that everything changed. Where was the post-9/11 like leadership? Anyone that knows me knows I don’t blame the federal response for that disaster as much as I do the local and state one. Yet, I recall one major speech. Where was Bush standing on the rubble? Where was the megaphone? What happened to that guy? I loved that guy.

And it seems “that guy” has disappeared on other issues as well. He fired Rummy the day after the election. He should have canned him 6 months prior, and not just for political reasons either. Gone is the Bully Pulpit, unless it’s being used on the people that got him elected, apparently. What happened?

I still think Bush will be judged much more kindly by history than he is being judged now. His post-9/11 leadership was nothing short of phenomenal. He’s done many good things, from tax cuts to ousting the Taliban. But right now it’s getting tough as a conservative to support the man for any reason other than respect for the office and for the troops under his command. He’s just not a conservative (see: Prescription Drug Bill as a prime example).

I know this…if the immigration bill passes as is, I’m off the wagon. Either way his rhetoric about the bill’s opponents is misguided and frankly insulting. George, we “thirty percenters” as it were stood by you through thick and thin, through Al Gore’s ridiculous behavior, through 2004, through absurd and shameful Democratic attacks of every kind…through it all. Now it’s time to listen to us…the people that put you in office. We know you’re not running again. The big secret is that as much as we dislike the Democrats, we’re not so disappointed about that fact.

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

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:

"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