Tag: Republican

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.

Healthcare for illegals

Healthcare for illegals

First, let me be clear, I think that Rep. Wilson of South Carolina should be censured for his outburst while President Barack Hussein Obama was speaking in a joint session of Congress. He reminds of irresponsible brats such as Kanye West. Public outbursts while the President is speaking are simply unacceptable in any format and definitely not allowed in a joint session of Congress.

I do think that it is interesting that the rude outburst occurred due to a statement from BHO regarding healthcare for illegal aliens. There is a reasonable argument that BHO, while perhaps not lying, was not telling the complete truth. Check out this interesting video below and then read the rest of my comments.

 

Now I see that the Democrats in the Senate would like to toughen up the loopholes to prevent illegal aliens from getting taxpayer supplied insurance. I don’t get it, BHO says that this can’t happen but now a few days later there is an amendment that prevents this thing that can’t happen.  Makes me think that BHO was bending the truth a bit and probably knew it.

Of course the solution that the Senate is currently thinking about is to use Social Security numbers.  Seems reasonable.  SS numbers have become the defacto national identity card that we need. I have ranted on this before, if we would just have national identity cards then we would control much of the illegal problem that we have.

Below are a few clips from a recent article in the Wall Street Journal:

A key Democratic senator said Friday that lawmakers planned to toughen provisions in a health bill to prevent illegal immigrants from enjoying benefits, in a Democratic response to concerns by some Republicans.

Members of the Senate Finance Committee met Friday, and Sen. Kent Conrad (D., N.D.) said they wanted to use Social Security numbers to ensure that illegal immigrants weren’t eligible for subsidies envisioned as part of a plan to expand health coverage.

President Obama’s health-reform proposal has sparked heated debate over whether the plan benefits illegal immigrants, as demonstrated by Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst. WSJ’s Elizabeth Williamson breaks down the details of the proposed new government-run insurance plan.

Still up in the air is whether illegal immigrants would be banned from participating in federally regulated insurance “exchanges” under Democrats’ health bills, even if the immigrants were willing to use their own money to buy policies. On Friday, a coalition of three dozen faith-based groups wrote to Congress to express anger at the proposed ban.

I agree until I disagree – Senator John Kerry

I agree until I disagree – Senator John Kerry

We are all familiar with the famous quote by Senator Kerry: “I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.”  Now it seems that Mr. Kerry has had another opportunity to change his mind.  He is now in favor of Governors of States to appoint an individual to fill an open Senate seat. 

Four or five years ago, Senator Kerry was concerned that his seat would be open if the USA would have been foolish enough to vote this weak-spine individual to the office of the President of the United States.  At that time, he supported Senator Kennedy’s successful efforts to change Massachusetts state law regarding the filling of Senate seats.

I do not live in Massachusetts.  I have no vote there and my opinion on their local politics should have little weight.  However, aren’t the good residents of Massachusetts tired of flip-flop Kerry?  Please remove him from our national agony and get him out of office.  Surely, there is another good Democrat that your beautiful and important state can find.

The following Wall Street Journal opinion actually describes this the best.  It is short, so despite my best efforts, I have been unable to edit this opinion and still retain its message.  I apologize to the Wall Street Journal for borrowing their content in entirety as it is not my typical technique.

John Kerry, the former junior Senator from Massachusetts, was back in Boston Wednesday, urging the state legislature to change the law governing U.S. Senate vacancies. The seat held by Edward Kennedy from 1962 until his death last month is to be filled in a January special election. Mr. Kerry, echoing a letter Kennedy wrote not long before he died, asked lawmakers to enact legislation allowing Governor Deval Patrick to appoint a Senator to serve in the interim.

“What Ted proposed is a plan that is hardly radical,” Mr. Kerry declared in his prepared testimony. “It’s hardly even unprecedented, even in Massachusetts.” That’s for sure. The law in the Bay State provided for interim appointment by the Governor as recently as 2004. That, of course, was the year that Mr. Kerry won the Democratic nomination for President. Just in case he won, the state legislature changed the law to strip the Governor of this power. That change also came at Senator Kennedy’s urging.

What changed in the ensuing five years? In 2004, the Governor, Mitt Romney, was a Republican. Mr. Patrick is a Democrat. So are the overwhelming number of state lawmakers, who overrode Mr. Romney’s veto. Raw partisan advantage explains why Mr. Kerry, like his departed colleague, was for the 2004 change before he was against it.

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!

Too politically correct

Too politically correct

I have had enough with being politically correct!  I just don’t get it.  When 96 percent of African-Americans obviously chose to vote for a man because of his color, the rest of the world has the right to comment on his color.  I do not begrudge the man appealing to the minority group that he belongs to.  That is exactly what happens in a representative government.  It is why in some voting districts a person that was a Jew or a Catholic or woman cannot win.  Frankly, it is why in some districts a Republican or a Democrat can’t win.

Stories that Walgreens is putting the spike on “Chia Obama” get my gander up.  After all, a chia pet is almost always a gag gift.  Why can’t it be a gag gift about a particular person?

Of course, perhaps the two NYC chicken joints are going over some proverbial line by actually making it look like President Obama is the owner of or is sanctioning a fried chicken establishment.  Using a man’s name to imply the he is an owner when he isn’t is not really in good taste (sorry for the bad pun).

In general though, Clint Eastwood was right that our political correctness is taking all the fun out of society and we are spending too much time on trying not to offend others.  We need to relax a bit.  Laugh at ourselves and our nationalities.  I am of Irish descent and the comments that I receive around March 17 are all in good fun and I never take offense besides…

…St. Patrick’s day is when everyone wishes they were Irish!

, ,

Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama?

Who is controlling President Barack Hussein Obama?

There seems to be a general trend lately that Barack Hussein Obama (BHO) is not really running things in the current administration.  Let’s point out a few examples:

  1. Former Senate Majority Tim Daschle, according to the NY Times, appeared to know that he owed backtaxes back in June but didn’t bother to tell the vetting team for his nomination to Secretary.  Why would he do that?  Simple, he didn’t feel the need to tell them because he already had it pre-wired that he would get confirmed even with that blemish on his record.
  2. Earlier, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, was nominated to his job even though he owed taxes (remember this is the guy that is running the IRS).  He sailed through confirmations.
  3. And, of course, even though BHO went to the Republicans to get their help on the stimulus package and the Republicans came up with some ideas and issues, Madame Pelosi rammed the bill through the House without the aid or consideration of BHO or the other party.

Of course, as I say in my About message above, I may be wrong.  But that would mean that BHO is simply naive and foolish in his selections.  I prefer to believe that BHO does have the wisdom to do the job.  Even though this quote by Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, gives me pause: “The president believes that nobody is perfect, but that nobody is trying to hide anything.”  While the former is true, I really have a hard time fathoming that anyone over the age of 14 believes the latter – didn’t the guy ever date?

, , , , , , , ,