Sen. Chris Dodd Farts in Room; Demands to Know Who Dealt It

Something stinks in the Legislature… and it ain’t the chili.  Chris Dodd’s senate investigation on the failure of the economy has the same cynical reek as did OJ Simpson’s vow to find Nicole’s killer.

As the Wall Street Journal noted yesterday:

At today’s hearing, his mission is to weave a tale that somehow manages to avoid mentioning his own role in this debacle. That won’t be easy, but Mr. Dodd has shrewdly selected a series of witnesses who, like him, contributed to the mess, and have every incentive to point fingers elsewhere.

Of course, WSJ is one of the only old media outlets to officially notice this.  Dodd, of course, has been talking up the idea that the market meltdown was a direct result of deregulation.  He blames regulators who, he says, “willfully ignored the abuses taking place on their beat.” He fails to mention that in 2005, while Republicans were warning about the dangers posed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Dodd himself was declaring the mortgage market to be “one of the great success stories of all time.”  Dodd conveniently forgets, in his crusdade for the truth, his sweetheart loans from Countrywide, or his $165,000 in campaign contributions from Fannie and Freddie — not to mention Barack’s $126,000.

It seems some idiot put the fox in charge of the henhouse, and now the fox is looking around for somebody to blame for eating the chickens.

September 11 2008

 

There were a number of topics I wanted to look at today, on this day of America’s greatest tragedy; however instead I have chose to just pause for a moment of silence with the rest of our country.  Let each of us remember the brave Americans who gave there lives that day.

Just What the Hell is Going On Down There?

Though you won’t hear it from most major news outlets, Washington Times (along with Newsmax, WND and UPI) reports that a US border patrol agent was recently held at gunpoint by Mexican troops — on United States Soil. According to the report, Mexican soldiers crossed the border in a fairly isolated location, approached the border agent (who has not been identified) and pointed their rifles at him.

Surprising and outrages, perhaps — but even more so is the fact that this is only one over more than 200 such incidents to take place since 1996. Some incidents have not been quite as threatening as this one, while one, which took place in 2002, involved armed Mexican soldiers actually firing on a lone border agent, actually shooting the agent’s vehicle with a .50 caliber weapon.

While it is certain that at least some of the 200 incursions by Mexican military onto our soil were accidental (after all, it’s not as if there’s a border fence…), incidents like the two I’ve mentioned above are clearly threats to US agents, obvious international incidents, and, if we’re to be honest about it, acts of war. These actions may or may not be sanctioned by the Mexican government, but the United States has the right, authority and duty to demand an explanation from Mexico, and extract the promise that these events cease immediately, under threat of severe military consequence.

The fact is, The US Customs and Border Patrol is law enforcement.  They are simply not equipped to deal with a threat to national security — as armed Mexican soldiers entering US property unprovoked clearly is.  If only we had a group of trained soldiers whose job it was to guard the nation.

It is long past time to get on the backs of our elected officials about this.  It’s time to build the damned fence.  It’s time to militarize the border.  It’s time for the government to do what we elected them to do: protect the United States of America.

Dear John: Don’t Make Us Regret This

So, predictably at this point, John McCain has cinched the Republican primary.  Unlike most Republican nominees, however, McCain’s win seems not to be because of Conservatives, but in spite of them.  McCain’s win was handed to him largely by open primary states, which allowed Democrats and indies to help select the Republican nominee.  This is evident to anyone who deigns to pay attention: Conservatives don’t want to vote for John McCain.  McCain himself seemed to know this; he’s spent the entire primary process pandering to “independents and independent-thinking Democrats.”  This has not gone unnoticed by the core of the Republican party.  Even in these latest Primaries, where McCain was essentially the only viable candidate running, he barely scraped more than half the vote. 

Rather than celebrating, McCain should perhaps be wondering how he managed to alienate his party so badly, and what he can do about it.  It is a victory, for certain — but if McCain is half the Conservative he has recently claimed to be, it ought to ring as a hollow one.

I am one of many registered Republicans who has not yet fully made up his mind about whether or not to punch the ballot for McCain come November.  He spent the entire primary fairly blatant about neither needing nor wanting the help or input of my fellow Conservatives.  There’s a part of many of us that thinks perhaps he also doesn’t need it now.  It is this part of me that cries out not to pull that lever.

Then there is another part of me.  A more fatalistic part that says no matter what, we’re going to get somebody in office with a far more liberal record than I’d prefer.  It is this more logical side which suggests that 60% right is far better than 100% wrong.

Let’s step back for a moment from what this election means for Conservatism in general.  Others have touched on it already, and I’ll look more in depth at it in the future.  Let’s focus instead on this country’s direction in the next four years.  The time for hand-wringing is over.  Either McCain, Obama or Clinton will be in the White House for the next four years.

I’m going to pretend my mind’s made up — that I’ll vote for McCain.  It isn’t, and I’m not sure I will, but for the sake of conversation.  John McCain needs to understand that, whatever he thought during the Primaries, he does need the Conservative vote.  To some degree, he accepts this premise, and has indicated as much. 

He and his supporters cannot make the assumption, and should not make the demand, that Conservatives simply put aside their differences and fall in line.  “Shut up and do what you’re told” isn’t going to work anymore.  As I said, too many Republicans simply don’t want to vote for McCain — he hasn’t earned it.  There are plenty of legitimate reasons to consider not voting McCain, and those need to be addressed by the McCain camp if he hopes for victory — not merely waved off as annoyances or distractions.

McCain needs to court the Conservative vote.  He needs to start by choosing an acceptable running mate.  Not somebody he chooses under the guise of “bipartisanship” — Conservatives are about sick to death of hearing that word — but a strong candidate with strong conservative credentials.  He needs to show us — not just tell us — that his “gang of 14” days are behind him.  He needs to repudiate McCain-Feingold and McCain-Kennedy as the travesties they are — or at the very least establish a commitment to listen to our concerns on these (something which he has repeatedly failed to do) and examine the issues from a perspective of Constitutional law.  Both of these pieces of legislation aimed to accomplish something that a more Constitutionally-sound (and conservative) approach would have addressed better, and he needs to show a willingness to examine those options.  And he’d damn well better make good on his recent promises regarding taxation.

In short, McCain simply cannot take his nomination as a mandate for “business as usual.”  We’re not going to tolerate four years of dismissing or acting confrontationally toward the conservative wing of this party.  He’s spent his career as a Senator doing just that — four years doing it as president will all but guarantee a Democrat President for the next four years.  If I choose to vote for him this year, this is his second chance.  If he fails to deliver, there won’t be another.  Certainly, not from me.

-Streu-

What’s a Conservative to Do?

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Fred Thompson bow out of the race.  A heavy heart as I finally made the decision on Super Tuesday to vote for the nearest candidate left to a true conservative: Mitt Romney.

It was with a heavy heart that I watched Romney get his ass handed to him on Tuesday, and then read his concession speech today.

It was with a heavy heart that I read John McCain’s speech to Conservatives, and began to understand that this arrogant SOB is the only chance we have left against a Dem-led White House.   The speech in which he acknowledged his differences with Conservatives on particular issues, but then dismissed those issues as unimportant.  Issues like the First Amendment and border security.  Issues like the Bush tax cuts. 

To his credit (I guess), McCain did not apologize for his decisions in these matters — merely acknowledged that they failed to line up with the views of the Conservative base.  He still believes the Conservative base is wrong on these issues.  He fails to see how McCain-Feingold attacks the fundamentals of Free Speech.  He promises constructionist judges — but won’t say how he will find judges who are both “strict constructionists” and will uphold McCain-Feingold (because such individuals don’t exist — the two are mutually exclusive.  This leads one to wonder, then, which ideal will be the guiding principle).  He promises to secure the borders first, if elected, but will not backtrack on McCain-Kennedy amnesty for those already living illegally within our borders.  He has not acknowledged any wrongdoing regarding his blatant and false smear against Romney on the Iraq issue.

Today, he said the right things.  I am not convinced — and don’t expect I will be — that he is the right man.

But, we conservatives are told, now is not the time to “abandon” the Republican party.  Now is not the time to let our principles stand in the way of a Republican victory.  There’s a war on, after all, we’re told.  An economy that threatens to collapse.  Could we be so callous, so … so selfish, that we would sacrifice the US to the will of the Democrat party, simply to “make a point?”

So, with a pat on the head (or a smack on the face), we’re told to hang on to those principles until 2012, perhaps.  Or maybe 2018.  The Republicans haven’t abandoned Conservatism, we’re told.  But we really need a win right now.  And if we Conservatives weren’t so damned picky, we could have this thing in the bag.

Fine… so we hang our ideals and vote for McCain.  We beat the Democrats.  And then what?  When do the Conservatives get their party back?  When do get to fight for our own values without being labeled as “traitors” to the party that is even now betraying us?  When do we get to fight the leftward motion of the Republican party, or failing that, leave?  2012?  Assuming there isn’t a similar crisis that demands our loyalty?

McCain spent the last few years of his career betraying Conservatives.  Now he’s asking for our loyalty?  How many times does this dog have to bite before we’re allowed to put it down?

I haven’t yet made up my mind about whether McCain gets my vote in November.  I know he’s not getting my money.  He hasn’t earned my support.  He hasn’t yet earned my vote.  A few paragraphs of pretty words and a call for Conservatives to make nice doesn’t undo McCain-Feingold, or the Gang of 14, or his opposition to the Bush tax cuts, or McCain-Kennedy.  The looming spectre of a Democrat president may well be enough to scare me into pulling the McCain lever.  But neither McCain nor his supporters should make the mistake of taking the vote as anything other than that.

It’s not a mandate to continue pulling the crap he’s been pulling.  It’s not an invitation to urinate all over Conservative principles in the interest of “bipartisanship.”  Conservatives aren’t voting for the Maverick.  They’re voting against the Democrats, plain and simple.  It’ll be a hollow victory for all involved, if victory it is.  A marriage of convenience with divorce looming ever-so-near on the horizen.

So congratulations to John McCain.  He may or may not get my vote, but he has effectively won the nomination.  He hasn’t won my mind.  He hasn’t won the heart and soul of the Republican party.  In spite of the fact that most Conservatives can’t stomach the man, he has a victory.  Maybe it’ll be enough.  Maybe fear of Hillary and Obama will be enough to unite and mobilize the Republican voters.  It’ll have to be.  Because McCain isn’t.

Hillarycare Supporter Calls It: It’s About Control

In order to give supporters more opportunity to answer this question (perhaps word it better than the response I’ve received), I’m going to continue to ask the question about mandating health insurance.  But the one person who has answered my question so far (a commenter on a blog at Hill’s official site) has given quite the telling response. 

I should note, before getting into it, a couple things.  First, I’ve asked this question so many times, in so many formats, on so many forums, that I’ve simply lost count.  Hillary herself, or anyone on her team, has yet to consider the question — perhaps because it hasn’t been asked publically by an opinion-shaper (perhaps because the opinion-shapers already have their horse, and don’t wish to confuse voters with things like facts).  The question, by the way, is simply: why mandates?  Why, in the course of creating healthcare legislation, do some politicians like Clinton insist on mandating insurance on individuals?

A commenter (as opposed to a blogger) on Hillary’s website has finally answered my question, somewhat.  And while it’s not the official answer, it is at least a peek into how some voters are thinking.  This commenter shares my wife’s name, ironically, but not, unfortunately, her intelligence.

“… the idea is you can only truly control costs in an environment where everyone participates.  However, you would not need to purchase private insurance, along with opening up the congressional pool, Hillary plans to allow anyone interested to purchase a medicare-type public health coverage.”

Now, at the very least, this statement represents the role some voters would like for the Federal Government to play in healthcare, and therefore, in our individual lives.  Two key words here: “control” and “allow.” 

Look, using the word “allow” in the context of Federal Government is the very antithesis of liberty.  My health insurance decisions ought to be mine — there should be no such thing as what the Federal Government “allows” in terms of my decisions about my health and that of my family.  “Allow” presumes “control.”  The statement I highlighted above, then, is one made by somebody who not only is resigned to, but actively welcomes government control over her life.  The word for this is “socialism,” and that is why I refuse to let Hillary remove the word “socialized” from her plan uncontested.

Actually, though, the assessment isn’t entirely accurate.  If the government mandates healthcare costs, they have no need to force participation by individuals.  Especially when they also offer a government-run alternative as competition.  Therefore, cost-control cannot be affected by forced participation.  If this is, in fact, the reasoning Hillary is using for her mandates, either she’s an idiot, or she assumes we are.

We already know she isn’t stupid.  Guess where that leaves us.

-Streu-

Fox Calls for Fred

Fox’s focus groups just called Fred Thompson the Big Winner of the Debate.  I think out of the group of 40 only 4 didnt pick Fred as the winner.  A great Debate for Fred tonight!

Ron Paul named the big loser of the night, I guess he was a little more Crazy then usuall

-Ambrose-

I’m Baffled

MSNBC just called McCain the winner in with 12% of the vote in? 12 %

-Ambrose-

9:45

I’m speechless.

9:27 — Nope. They haven’t Learned.

Less than 70% of the votes in, and MSM is declaring Obama winner.  Normally, that’d be okay.  But, A, it’s been going back and forth between the Dem top three and, B, he currently is beating Hillary and Edwards by just 4%.  Are the remaining precincts that few?  I think not.

Still… based on early polling, they may be right.  We’ll see.  It’s not as though I wouldn’t love for Hillary to be knocked down a notch.  Even if it is just in one state.