Tag: politicians

First thoughts on the day after election

First thoughts on the day after election

The massive mid-term election of 2010 is now over. My phone won’t ring 25 times today with some computer imploring me to vote for one candidate over another. The signs that are all along the streets in my town can come down (hopefully the candidates come out and clean up their mess). Life can now go back to some sort of normal.

The Republicans evidently picked up approximately 60 seats in the House of Representatives. They also made major increases in the Senate and that house appears to be split nearly 50/50 (the exact count probably won’t be known for a couple days as Alaska will probably take a while to count due to the write-in candidate).

What does this election mean? Does it mean that the 2-year era of liberalism is over? Does it mean that conservatism is the rule of the day? Does it mean that Barack Hussein Obama will lose in 2 years? Does it mean that the Republicans have a mandate to go ultra-conservative? Does it mean that the poor and down-trodden will need to look for their medicine in the trash cans of the homes of the wealthy? Does it mean that I have to give up drinking coffee and now drink tea?

What I am 100% confident in is that it doesn’t mean any of the above! It doesn’t mean that BHO is done. It doesn’t mean that all of healthcare should just go to the wealthiest. It doesn’t mean that we should now savage the environment.

I don’t think that the newly elected Republicans have a mandate at all except for the mandate to do a good job and figure out the best way to solve each individual problem regardless of party direction.

I think it means that Americans want a government that works. We want it to work rather slowly and deliberately. We want politicians that don’t act like politicians but rather act like leaders. We want compromise to be the rule of the day. We want our leaders to read, understand, and thoughtfully debate the bills that are before them. We don’t want to find out about what is in the bill after it is turned into law – we want our leaders to know what is in the bill before they make it a law.

We don’t want stagnation. If Boehner drives the government to a stall the way that Gingrich did, that would be a mistake.

Most of all, I think Americans don’t want to deal with the federal government. We don’t want our lives to be tied up with governing. Life is hard enough with births, jobs, bills, lousy bosses, teenagers, sickness, and death – we don’t want to worry about the feds as well. I think most Americans would be perfectly happy if government would just get out of our lives with the exception of keeping us safe, making sure the infrastructure works, and helping out with the truly disadvantaged. We will pay a reasonable tax for that as long as we think it is well managed.

I raise my coffee cup in a salute to the Tea Party activists for energizing America in making their point. That point, I believe, is that we want our legislators to pay attention to us, don’t tax us to death, and spend what you need but make sure what you buy is needed. 2 years ago, pundits were saying that the Republican party was dead, now the pundits need to say, “Listen to your constituents if you want to keep your job.” 

There is no such thing as a mandate to do radical things. Extremism is a bad position no matter which side of the scale you are on.

If the grown men and women in the federal government can’t get along better than a bunch of nursery school kids, then we will take away their ball and send a new bunch of children to Washington in 2 years.

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-05-17

Twitter Weekly Updates for 2009-05-17

  • As I read the news today: “I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians.” – De Gaulle #
  • AAU tournament in Bloomington IN. A lot of talented basketball players! #
  • What do you get when you have 15 courts going with top high school basketball talent? College coaches and sweat. #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

Does a party even mean anything?

Does a party even mean anything?

Senator Specter just announced that he is switching parties from Republican to Democrat?  Does this mean anything?  Should it mean anything?

If the Democrat Party is so similar in its intent and stature to the Republican party that a politician can easily switch then it is likely that there is no reason to have either party. What values does a party have if they are so obscure that you can join one and then the other without looking like a fool?

Sen. Specter says in his declaration “I have taken each issue one at a time and have exercised independent judgment to do what I thought was best for Pennsylvania and the nation.”  This begs the question: doesn’t every politician do that? I have a deep feeling that they don’t but they should.

So now he is going to caucus as a Democrat.  Does that mean that he falls in line with the leadership of that party and be at the beck and call of their leadership?  As NixGuy points out, he wasn’t exactly doing this as a Republican and I hope that he is at least as rebellious to his new leadership as he was to his old leadership!  If not, then he is a wimp and he cannot make up his own mind – or worse he historically was a liar.

To be honest, all we ever want from our politicians is that they consider each issue fully and make a decision that is in the best interest of their immediate constituents and the nation as a whole.  It is unfortunate that most politicians don’t really get that and always have other masters that they want to serve besides the people that voted them into office.

With the current rebellion on taxes that is occurring around the country right now, being a Democrat may not be a safe haven for a politician right now!

Is the President lying about jobs creation?

Is the President lying about jobs creation?

Is President Barack Hussein Obama lying

I am sure that he doesn’t think he is.  I am sure that if you parse his words he would point out that he didn’t say that Caterpillar would be able to re-hire those laid off employees immediately.  And I am sure that he would say that if Congress would pass HIS package (rather than the compromise package) then the CAT employees would get to work a lot faster.

While we all know when politicians are lying (their mouth is moving), it is not inconceivable that the CEO of Caterpillar told BHO one thing in private and another on television.  On TV, his statements would have been closely followed by investors and so his honesty factor has to go way up.  He could get into all kinds of trouble if he said that he thought he could bring back workers and then announce that he was just kidding.

The reality is that this stimulus bill doesn’t have a lot of stimulus in it.  I wrote about what it should have in it, but I am not naive enough to believe that congressional leaders are regularly reading my site to understand what they should do.

http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=6866999

Obama vs Jim Owens CEO of Caterpillar

, , ,

Tom Daschle on taxes

Tom Daschle on taxes

I guess this only holds when you are actually in office.  Once you are in the private sector, taking money from corporations in excess of $1M per year, and being chauffeured around DC it no longer applies.

“Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. ” Sen. Tom Daschle, Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Tim Daschle should remove his name from consideration as the HHS Secretary.  He is an embarrassment to politicians, private citizens, and President Barack Hussein Obama.

This is simply another testimony to the fact that BHO is simply the most inexperienced President ever and is being controlled by forces that may not have the best interest of the country.

, , , , ,