In less than three hours here on the Left Coast, it will be Wednesday, April 1, 2009. April Fools Day. And what better way to be fooled than a slew of tax hikes that the beleaguered citizens of California will have to pay?!
Tomorrow, in Los Angeles County, the sales tax will rise from 8.25% to 9.25%. The vehicle registration fee, which is one of the reasons Democrat Gray Era Davis is former governor Davis, will go up. And, in completion of the tax trifecta, state income taxes will also rise.
In a little over a month and a half, the voters of California will, God willing, send a message loud and clear to the clowns in Sacramento.
In an earlier post, I noted that we are having a special election to extend the sales tax "temporary" hike, rob some programs, supposedly fund education programs, and not let the legislators give themselves a pay raise if the state budget is in deficit spending.
Want to take a wild guess as to what one of the six initiatives may pass when the voters go to the polls on May 19? Let me just write that it is none of the tax, robbing or funding initiatives. It is the one to deny pay raises to the state legislators. Prop 1F gets these whopping numbers: 81% yes, 13% no, 6% undecided. Only one of the five tax and robbing initiatives comes close to the 50% margin approval and that is Prop 1d which would steal money from early childhood programs. And those numbers can not be all that encouraging, 48% yes, 36% no, 16% undecided.
The rule of thumb in Proposition elections that if the proposed initiative is not at least 50% plus this close to the election, it will fail.
While I oppose every one of these initiatives, I will not be upset if voters pass Prop 1F and vote no on the tax and robbing ones.
It may get even harder when people have to start paying higher sales tax. Income tax. Vehicle registration taxes. And all within two months of the special election.
Yes, it is a perfect day to see our taxes go up in California. April Fools Day.
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
The New Chrysler-Courtesy Of Fiat And President Obama
Ah, if you listen very closely, you can hear the American auto makers General Motors and Chrysler in particular, going down the drain.
But, never fear for Chrysler!
The Car Czar-In-Chief, aka President Obama, has a solution to the problems that ail Chrysler in asking the Italian car maker, Fiat, to buy the beleaguered Chrysler.
Now one may remember that Fiat did have a run in the United States. And, well, it was not all that good of a run.
I remember that there were Fiats sold in the United States when I was growing up in the 70s. But by the time I got to high school, Fiat went out of the American market.
It is perplexing that somehow Car Czar-In-Chief Obama would know better than the free market. But since he has no faith in the free market, well I will show you what a future Chrysler car may look like courtesy of the Fiat United Kingdom website.
Below is the 500. Is i
t not a beaut?!
t not a beaut?! Beside the fact that it looks not all that different from the well known Toyota Yaris, it also looks like a poor man's Volkswagen Bug. Not exactly all that original design. 
To the right is the 600 Sceiento. Oh yes, I am certain that that American car buyer is yearning for this model. I just can not imagine how Fiat did not crack the American market the first time.
But this, the Qubo is the most special of all. Look at the hideousness of this, I assume mini van! It is as gross as gross can be.Imagine the Chrysler name on any of these products?!
It is a travesty that it has come to this for one of the great American auto makers.
Sure, Chrysler is in trouble. But is it a solution to partner it with a foreign auto company that could not make it in this market in the 70s? Is there not another, more well known and profitable company other than Fiat that Chrysler can become part of?
But, this is what happens when these car makers went hat-in-hand to the federal government begging for cash rather than-and that is for another post-declaring Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and have the chance to reorganize on their own terms with the help of a bankruptcy court.
Now, imagine all of these crap cars on the great highways of the United States? What an awful thought. But, one that appears on the way if the Car Czar-In-Chief has his way.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
The Left's Campaign Of "Tolerance" Going After Bill O'Reily
Now, I agree with the person that sent me this link that it may not be all that accurate. But if it is, it is just one more example of the biggest lie of the left. That they are filled with "non-judgementalism" and "tolerance".
Think Progress is, besides being an absolute oxymoron, a left-wing group that is in the fore front of trying to silence any opposition to President Obama and his agenda. In and of itself, I have problem in their support for President Obama and his agenda. But, rather than build support on the merit, the left figures that it can just tear down their opponents.
But putting pressure on a major corporation such as United Parcel Service to stop shipping Bill O'Reily's merchandise is intolerable.
In these tough economic times, companies can not afford to lose any customer. And if this is true that a major parcel carrier such as United Parcel Service will stop shipping the merchandise of a popular commentator, where will it end?
It will not in the eyes of the left wing. All opposition must be squelched. In any way possible. Whether it is legal or not.
As the writer who sent me the link pointed out, there are other services, such as the United States Postal Service, Federal Express and others that would be more than glad to get my business.
If United Parcel Service can cave so easy, who is to say that others will not as well?
Ah, Hope and Change! Hope and Change!
Think Progress is, besides being an absolute oxymoron, a left-wing group that is in the fore front of trying to silence any opposition to President Obama and his agenda. In and of itself, I have problem in their support for President Obama and his agenda. But, rather than build support on the merit, the left figures that it can just tear down their opponents.
But putting pressure on a major corporation such as United Parcel Service to stop shipping Bill O'Reily's merchandise is intolerable.
In these tough economic times, companies can not afford to lose any customer. And if this is true that a major parcel carrier such as United Parcel Service will stop shipping the merchandise of a popular commentator, where will it end?
It will not in the eyes of the left wing. All opposition must be squelched. In any way possible. Whether it is legal or not.
As the writer who sent me the link pointed out, there are other services, such as the United States Postal Service, Federal Express and others that would be more than glad to get my business.
If United Parcel Service can cave so easy, who is to say that others will not as well?
Ah, Hope and Change! Hope and Change!
Turn ON The Lights Tonight!
Today all around the world, many of the iconic landmarks that are lit up will be put out at 8:30pm to "alert" the world to climate change, aka Globaloney Warming.
Here is something different to do.
Turn ON all the lights. If you are home, turn everything ON. Lights, computers everything.
Those of us that are called "deniers" because we do believe in the theory of Globaloney Warming need to stand up to those that do. We are made to feel that our point of view is irrelevant. But, it is not.
Many on the left have grasped on the the cult of Globaloney Warming as a way to socialize the economy. Sort of a last gasp of socialism.
If one thinks that is just hyperbole, consider that the California legislature is considering banning the color black on all new cars beginning in 2012.
It is all part of a way to bring about socialist economic policies through the back door. To "save" the planet.
Do not fall for it.
And remember, at 8:30pm tonight wherever you are, turn ON the lights!
Here is something different to do.
Turn ON all the lights. If you are home, turn everything ON. Lights, computers everything.
Those of us that are called "deniers" because we do believe in the theory of Globaloney Warming need to stand up to those that do. We are made to feel that our point of view is irrelevant. But, it is not.
Many on the left have grasped on the the cult of Globaloney Warming as a way to socialize the economy. Sort of a last gasp of socialism.
If one thinks that is just hyperbole, consider that the California legislature is considering banning the color black on all new cars beginning in 2012.
It is all part of a way to bring about socialist economic policies through the back door. To "save" the planet.
Do not fall for it.
And remember, at 8:30pm tonight wherever you are, turn ON the lights!
Friday, March 27, 2009
Margaret Thatcher And Sarah Palin-More Alike Than One Thinks
In the past Death March of a presidential campaign, many a Republican got excited over Sen. John "F--- You" McCain's choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.
The choice did not just excite Republicans but many a Democrat for within less than 48 hours, there were rumors and half-truths a plenty on the left-wing blogosphere.
But, many people were making a comparison to the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. And so many dismissed that because after all, Mrs. Thatcher was a real leader. A long-term prime minister.
But, in this post by Patum Peperium, the similarities are rather eerie to say the least.
Here the exact photo caption that is on the post when Mrs. Thatcher became the leader of the British Conservative party:
LONDON: She has been described as a "deceptively fragile-looking blonde housewife," but Margaret Thatcher, 49-year-old mother of 21-year-old twins, "is one of the toughest in-fighters in the largely men's world of British politics." This week the former education secretary in the 1970-74 Edward Heath government, was elected to the Conservative party throne from which she toppled former Premier Heath a week earlier. The victory made her Britain's first woman party leader and put her well in the running some day to become the country's first woman Prime Minister.
It was an establishment tool, former Prime Minister Edward Heath, that gave Mrs. Thatcher her first break serving as the Education minister.
A Republican tool, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain gave Gov. Palin her first break serving as his running mate.
The critics dismissed Mrs. Thatcher in similar ways that they are doing to Gov. Palin.
But the thrust of the linked post is putting all the establishment critics in a one-stop place.
The list is the typical establishment types: Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Jeffrey Hart, and Christopher Hitchens. Patum forgot one. DAVID FRUM!
These are short-sided people who have never ran for and been elected to anything.
Someone like a Margaret Thatcher had to run in elections, win and or lose and when she won, she had to govern. Mrs. Thatcher had to put what she believed in practice.
Same for Gov. Palin. She has had to run in elections, win and now lose. And when she won, she has had to govern.
And it is a good thing that Gov. Palin is back in Alaska governing. It is a good thing that she is not sucking up to people that think she is not their equal.
Gov. Palin is not their equal. Gov. Palin is superior to these people that write a good game, but not actually having to govern.
It would behoove Gov. Palin to study Margaret Thatcher. She will learn a lot and it will help her if she goes on to higher office.
HT: The Other McCain @ www.rsmccain.blogspot.com
The choice did not just excite Republicans but many a Democrat for within less than 48 hours, there were rumors and half-truths a plenty on the left-wing blogosphere.
But, many people were making a comparison to the former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. And so many dismissed that because after all, Mrs. Thatcher was a real leader. A long-term prime minister.
But, in this post by Patum Peperium, the similarities are rather eerie to say the least.
Here the exact photo caption that is on the post when Mrs. Thatcher became the leader of the British Conservative party:
LONDON: She has been described as a "deceptively fragile-looking blonde housewife," but Margaret Thatcher, 49-year-old mother of 21-year-old twins, "is one of the toughest in-fighters in the largely men's world of British politics." This week the former education secretary in the 1970-74 Edward Heath government, was elected to the Conservative party throne from which she toppled former Premier Heath a week earlier. The victory made her Britain's first woman party leader and put her well in the running some day to become the country's first woman Prime Minister.
It was an establishment tool, former Prime Minister Edward Heath, that gave Mrs. Thatcher her first break serving as the Education minister.
A Republican tool, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain gave Gov. Palin her first break serving as his running mate.
The critics dismissed Mrs. Thatcher in similar ways that they are doing to Gov. Palin.
But the thrust of the linked post is putting all the establishment critics in a one-stop place.
The list is the typical establishment types: Peggy Noonan, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks, Jeffrey Hart, and Christopher Hitchens. Patum forgot one. DAVID FRUM!
These are short-sided people who have never ran for and been elected to anything.
Someone like a Margaret Thatcher had to run in elections, win and or lose and when she won, she had to govern. Mrs. Thatcher had to put what she believed in practice.
Same for Gov. Palin. She has had to run in elections, win and now lose. And when she won, she has had to govern.
And it is a good thing that Gov. Palin is back in Alaska governing. It is a good thing that she is not sucking up to people that think she is not their equal.
Gov. Palin is not their equal. Gov. Palin is superior to these people that write a good game, but not actually having to govern.
It would behoove Gov. Palin to study Margaret Thatcher. She will learn a lot and it will help her if she goes on to higher office.
HT: The Other McCain @ www.rsmccain.blogspot.com
Thursday, March 26, 2009
Hypocrisy, Thy Name Is The Democrat Party
Talk about Chutzpah!
Even for the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, this is a load of Chutzpah. Keeping $100,000 in donations made by convicted Ponzi schemer extraordinaire, Bernard Madoff.
Can you imagine the outrage, I mean the outrage!
If the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee did the same thing, the Democrats and their media allies (not to mention MoveOn.org and their allies) would have this as top-of-the-news coverage.
But, as Mr. Heye points out at the linked post, the crickets are chirping over at The New York Times. The Washington Post. The Los Angeles Times. Well, maybe The New York Times can not pay a reporter to look into it. The Los Angeles Times is bankrupt. And The Washington Post is nearing its own breaking point.
Back to point.
Where is the righteous outrage?
It is no where to be found.
Bernard Madoff is a fraud that prison is too good for him. And worse, he singlehandedly ruined people's whole life savings in a scheme went beyond robbing Peter to pay Paul. Mr. Madoff out and out robbed from people that thought he was doing right by them. Mr. Madoff built his house of cards on personal relationships.
The fact that the DSCC will not give back the money shows them to be the immoral weasels that they are. They are also grade A, USDA Choice hypocrites for railing about AIG and their so-called excessive bonuses and yet keep money from a convicted felon that defrauded hundreds of people.
Tell the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee to give the money back. Here is some contact information:
Phone (202) 224-2447
Fax (202) 969-0354
Website www.dscc.org/
Let the Democrats know that they can not get away with their blatant hypocrisy.
GIVE THE MONEY BACK! GIVE THE MONEY BACK!
HT: Mona Charen @ www.corner.nationalreview.com
Even for the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee, this is a load of Chutzpah. Keeping $100,000 in donations made by convicted Ponzi schemer extraordinaire, Bernard Madoff.
Can you imagine the outrage, I mean the outrage!
If the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee did the same thing, the Democrats and their media allies (not to mention MoveOn.org and their allies) would have this as top-of-the-news coverage.
But, as Mr. Heye points out at the linked post, the crickets are chirping over at The New York Times. The Washington Post. The Los Angeles Times. Well, maybe The New York Times can not pay a reporter to look into it. The Los Angeles Times is bankrupt. And The Washington Post is nearing its own breaking point.
Back to point.
Where is the righteous outrage?
It is no where to be found.
Bernard Madoff is a fraud that prison is too good for him. And worse, he singlehandedly ruined people's whole life savings in a scheme went beyond robbing Peter to pay Paul. Mr. Madoff out and out robbed from people that thought he was doing right by them. Mr. Madoff built his house of cards on personal relationships.
The fact that the DSCC will not give back the money shows them to be the immoral weasels that they are. They are also grade A, USDA Choice hypocrites for railing about AIG and their so-called excessive bonuses and yet keep money from a convicted felon that defrauded hundreds of people.
Tell the Democrat Senatorial Campaign Committee to give the money back. Here is some contact information:
Phone (202) 224-2447
Fax (202) 969-0354
Website www.dscc.org/
Let the Democrats know that they can not get away with their blatant hypocrisy.
GIVE THE MONEY BACK! GIVE THE MONEY BACK!
HT: Mona Charen @ www.corner.nationalreview.com
Who's Number 1? Not These Morons!
While the financial services sector nears collapse, the most left-wing president and congress prepare to force more federal government in all Americans' lives, it is great to know that some members of congress have their priorities straight.
Whats more is that this is being led by. . .REPUBLICANS!
Look, the way that college football chooses it national champion has been a source of conversation over most of my lifetime. I am not a fan of the Bowl Conspiracy Series. I'm sorry, the Bowl Championship Series. My bad!
While I was growing up in the dreaded 1970s, I remember that there were four big bowl games and they were all on New Year's Day. The Cotton, Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls. Somehow, chosen by coaches and or sportswriters, a bowl game had the top ranked team in the United States. And if they won, they generally won the national championship as determined by the AP and UPI polls.
An imperfect system but one that worked good enough for me.
Now, some members of congress, particularly Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) seem to want to get the federal government involved in how the current BCS concept is. And, well, it is not all that good.
The real thrust of this is that Sen. Hatch and many a Utahan are upset that the University of Utah Utes went undefeated. And that they were not even remotely considered for the so-called national championship game.
To quote a former president, I feel their pain.
But is this really a good use of Sen. Hatch and the senate's time in this seemingly endless stream of "crisis" befalling our great nation?
NO! NO! NO!
It is stupidity like this that makes the Republican party seem not ready for prime time.
Yes, Sen. Hatch can be upset. But a better use of his time would be how these universities and their tenured professors are brainwashing our youts into mindless marshmallows. Brainwashing them into mindless socialists. Now, that would be a cause I could get behind.
Again, let the college football powers to be figure out how they can determine who the football champion should be. The federal government has no, I mean no, role in this monstrosity.
Time for Sen. Hatch and Congressman Barton to put their angst away and start discussing the real issues that need to be discussed.
It is clear that these guys are not number one.
Whats more is that this is being led by. . .REPUBLICANS!
Look, the way that college football chooses it national champion has been a source of conversation over most of my lifetime. I am not a fan of the Bowl Conspiracy Series. I'm sorry, the Bowl Championship Series. My bad!
While I was growing up in the dreaded 1970s, I remember that there were four big bowl games and they were all on New Year's Day. The Cotton, Orange, Rose and Sugar Bowls. Somehow, chosen by coaches and or sportswriters, a bowl game had the top ranked team in the United States. And if they won, they generally won the national championship as determined by the AP and UPI polls.
An imperfect system but one that worked good enough for me.
Now, some members of congress, particularly Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Congressman Joe Barton (R-TX) seem to want to get the federal government involved in how the current BCS concept is. And, well, it is not all that good.
The real thrust of this is that Sen. Hatch and many a Utahan are upset that the University of Utah Utes went undefeated. And that they were not even remotely considered for the so-called national championship game.
To quote a former president, I feel their pain.
But is this really a good use of Sen. Hatch and the senate's time in this seemingly endless stream of "crisis" befalling our great nation?
NO! NO! NO!
It is stupidity like this that makes the Republican party seem not ready for prime time.
Yes, Sen. Hatch can be upset. But a better use of his time would be how these universities and their tenured professors are brainwashing our youts into mindless marshmallows. Brainwashing them into mindless socialists. Now, that would be a cause I could get behind.
Again, let the college football powers to be figure out how they can determine who the football champion should be. The federal government has no, I mean no, role in this monstrosity.
Time for Sen. Hatch and Congressman Barton to put their angst away and start discussing the real issues that need to be discussed.
It is clear that these guys are not number one.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
One For The Troops
If you are an active service member or a veteran, this event in Pasadena, California, headquarters of rightviewfromtheleftcoast, is for you.
It is completely free and as of this posting, only 163 tickets are left.
And it will be at the expanded Pasadena Convention Center Grand Ballroom.
HT: Hugh Hewitt @ www.hughhewitt.com
It is completely free and as of this posting, only 163 tickets are left.
And it will be at the expanded Pasadena Convention Center Grand Ballroom.
HT: Hugh Hewitt @ www.hughhewitt.com
More Proof David Frum Is A Cancer On The Republican Party
I should not be amazed by this, and I am not. It is more in the category, 'See, I warned you!"
The fact that Obamaweek, aka Newsweek, published six letters in response to so-called conservative Republican David Frum and his one man Jihad against Rush Limbaugh would be OK. But the fact that there was not one letter even remotely defending and or articulating what Mr. Limbaugh has said in the course of 20 years behind the golden EIB microphone is beyond telling.
What, do only left-wing Democrats read Newsweek? Or are they the only ones who would even bother to write praising Mr. Frum to High Heaven?
Of course not!
One of the more amusing letters is from an Erika Giles of Mercer Island, Washington:
So your cover features Rush Limbaugh with the word ENOUGH! taped over his mouth. By putting Rush on the cover of your magazine, you, like much of the media, are encouraging the very behavior you purport to deplore. With the critical problems facing this country, the comments of this hypocrite (have people forgotten his drug use while he railed against drug use by others?) are nothing more than a sideshow. Left alone, the story would have quickly died, which would have been a big favor to the many people in this country who really don't care what Limbaugh has to say.
Erika Giles
Mercer Island, Wash.
Firstly Miss Giles, Mr. Limbaugh never made any rail against drug use. I, unlike most of the letter writers, have listened to Mr. Limbaugh over the years and I never heard him on any kind of anti-drug campaign whatsoever. Now, I have not listened to Mr. Limbaugh as much in the past several years, but Miss Giles should at least give an actual example rather than repeat talking points. And if you do not seem to care what Mr. Limbaugh has to say, why did you waste your time writing to Obamaweek in the first place? Believe me, I am not waiting for that answer.
Secondly, as I have noted many times, by Mr. Frum assaulting Mr. Limbaugh on personality rather than substance, he resorts to an old lefty trick. It is make it about the person and not the policy. It is exactly what the left spent the last eight years doing for former President Bush 43. And, to an extent it worked because we now have President Obama.
While Mr. Limbaugh brings an articulate, reasoned view of conservatism, Mr. Frum is trying to change the basic conservative ideology. Take out those pesky social issues that the DDBMSOWM believe are the only two things conservative Republicans care about-abortion and same-sex marriage-and all will be well. And, Mr. Frum is making it a personality contest.
The reality is that it is David Frum that is a cancer to the conservative Republican cause. By willing to sell out on issues, he is more interested in power for power's sake. Not to be transformative. That is exactly what got the Republicans in trouble in the first place.
As Prof. Douglas notes in the linked post, Democrats Love David Frum.
And that is proof enough we need to lance the cancerous boil that is David Frum once and for all.
HT: Donald Douglas @ www.americanpowerblog.blogspot.com
The fact that Obamaweek, aka Newsweek, published six letters in response to so-called conservative Republican David Frum and his one man Jihad against Rush Limbaugh would be OK. But the fact that there was not one letter even remotely defending and or articulating what Mr. Limbaugh has said in the course of 20 years behind the golden EIB microphone is beyond telling.
What, do only left-wing Democrats read Newsweek? Or are they the only ones who would even bother to write praising Mr. Frum to High Heaven?
Of course not!
One of the more amusing letters is from an Erika Giles of Mercer Island, Washington:
So your cover features Rush Limbaugh with the word ENOUGH! taped over his mouth. By putting Rush on the cover of your magazine, you, like much of the media, are encouraging the very behavior you purport to deplore. With the critical problems facing this country, the comments of this hypocrite (have people forgotten his drug use while he railed against drug use by others?) are nothing more than a sideshow. Left alone, the story would have quickly died, which would have been a big favor to the many people in this country who really don't care what Limbaugh has to say.
Erika Giles
Mercer Island, Wash.
Firstly Miss Giles, Mr. Limbaugh never made any rail against drug use. I, unlike most of the letter writers, have listened to Mr. Limbaugh over the years and I never heard him on any kind of anti-drug campaign whatsoever. Now, I have not listened to Mr. Limbaugh as much in the past several years, but Miss Giles should at least give an actual example rather than repeat talking points. And if you do not seem to care what Mr. Limbaugh has to say, why did you waste your time writing to Obamaweek in the first place? Believe me, I am not waiting for that answer.
Secondly, as I have noted many times, by Mr. Frum assaulting Mr. Limbaugh on personality rather than substance, he resorts to an old lefty trick. It is make it about the person and not the policy. It is exactly what the left spent the last eight years doing for former President Bush 43. And, to an extent it worked because we now have President Obama.
While Mr. Limbaugh brings an articulate, reasoned view of conservatism, Mr. Frum is trying to change the basic conservative ideology. Take out those pesky social issues that the DDBMSOWM believe are the only two things conservative Republicans care about-abortion and same-sex marriage-and all will be well. And, Mr. Frum is making it a personality contest.
The reality is that it is David Frum that is a cancer to the conservative Republican cause. By willing to sell out on issues, he is more interested in power for power's sake. Not to be transformative. That is exactly what got the Republicans in trouble in the first place.
As Prof. Douglas notes in the linked post, Democrats Love David Frum.
And that is proof enough we need to lance the cancerous boil that is David Frum once and for all.
HT: Donald Douglas @ www.americanpowerblog.blogspot.com
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Middle Class Tax Cut? What Tax Cut?!
Well, well, well!!! As Gomer Pyle would say, "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!"
President Obama would not comment , what else is new, on the possibility that the Democrat-controlled senate would scrap the so-called middle class tax cut in 2010.
And why not? Taxes will rise that year because of the Bush tax cuts set to expire that year.
So why should we keep expecting that extra $13 of our own money?
Hype and the Same, Baby! Hype and the Same!
President Obama would not comment , what else is new, on the possibility that the Democrat-controlled senate would scrap the so-called middle class tax cut in 2010.
And why not? Taxes will rise that year because of the Bush tax cuts set to expire that year.
So why should we keep expecting that extra $13 of our own money?
Hype and the Same, Baby! Hype and the Same!
A Potential Look At The GOP In 2010-Via 1966
I know that a lot of those who blindly support President Obama have no clue that there is a righteous anger out there. It is against the attempts by President Obama and the Democrat controlled congress to overreach and impose a statist-driven economy. As well as transform the United States in many other areas that are, frankly, none of any government's damn business.
And yes, there is a historical point to look back at the last time that a president tried such an overreach and found himself on the outs.
The year was 1964 and President Lyndon Johnson smacked down Republican presidential nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater. It was a landslide year in which President Johnson had a congress dominated by Democrats. When the new congress opened in 1965, there were 295 Democrats vs. 140 Republicans. And the Democrats had a filibuster-proof senate with 68 seats to the Republicans paltry 32.
To many people, that is where the Republicans are today.
However, the reality is no where near that bad of a state. The Republicans have 176 seats in the House and 40 or maybe 41 in the senate. In reality, they are within striking distance in 2010.
In this piece by Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator, he points out that on the heels of the Republican wipe out of '64, they came roaring back in '66. No, they did not take back either house of congress, but they set the stage for taking back the White House in 1968.
In 1966, the Republicans gained 47 seats in the House, only three in the senate and eight governorships.
In a strange way of how events at the time do not seem to be what they are later in history, the political careers of two Republicans started in that magical year.
Ronald Reagan crushed incumbent Democrat governor Edmund "Pat" Brown in California and became a very popular two-term governor. And, without a doubt, the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican party. In the outer South, another politician was winning his first election. That was a congressional seat near Houston, Texas. That man was George H. W. Bush. Fourteen years later, the two men who were rivals for the GOP presidential nomination would be joined at the hip to defeat the bumbling President Jimmy Carter.
But, back to Mr. Lord's piece.
In a forerunner to the Tea Party movement of 2009, it was housewives that had enough. They were tired of the inflation that cut into their buying power at the grocery store. And everywhere else. A group in Denver, Colorado formed a group, "Housewives for Lower Food Prices," and gained 50,000 members overnight. And it was the beginning of the end of President Johnson and the high-spending, high-taxing Democrats. At least in one election cycle.
It was not lead by the Republican party but by regular people.
Most important is that it began an era of Republican and conservative governance.
While the election of President Obama and the gains of the Democrats in last year's vote may signal and end to it, the chances are that because many people are still not all trusting of government to handle our most critical problems, the Republicans-conservative Republicans-can come back and quite possibly be a brake on some of President Obama's more radical initiatives.
The 2012 mid term election is shaping up to be a very interesting one. If the right people are willing to read the tea leaves, so to speak, and act accordingly.
And yes, there is a historical point to look back at the last time that a president tried such an overreach and found himself on the outs.
The year was 1964 and President Lyndon Johnson smacked down Republican presidential nominee Sen. Barry Goldwater. It was a landslide year in which President Johnson had a congress dominated by Democrats. When the new congress opened in 1965, there were 295 Democrats vs. 140 Republicans. And the Democrats had a filibuster-proof senate with 68 seats to the Republicans paltry 32.
To many people, that is where the Republicans are today.
However, the reality is no where near that bad of a state. The Republicans have 176 seats in the House and 40 or maybe 41 in the senate. In reality, they are within striking distance in 2010.
In this piece by Jeffrey Lord at The American Spectator, he points out that on the heels of the Republican wipe out of '64, they came roaring back in '66. No, they did not take back either house of congress, but they set the stage for taking back the White House in 1968.
In 1966, the Republicans gained 47 seats in the House, only three in the senate and eight governorships.
In a strange way of how events at the time do not seem to be what they are later in history, the political careers of two Republicans started in that magical year.
Ronald Reagan crushed incumbent Democrat governor Edmund "Pat" Brown in California and became a very popular two-term governor. And, without a doubt, the leader of the conservative wing of the Republican party. In the outer South, another politician was winning his first election. That was a congressional seat near Houston, Texas. That man was George H. W. Bush. Fourteen years later, the two men who were rivals for the GOP presidential nomination would be joined at the hip to defeat the bumbling President Jimmy Carter.
But, back to Mr. Lord's piece.
In a forerunner to the Tea Party movement of 2009, it was housewives that had enough. They were tired of the inflation that cut into their buying power at the grocery store. And everywhere else. A group in Denver, Colorado formed a group, "Housewives for Lower Food Prices," and gained 50,000 members overnight. And it was the beginning of the end of President Johnson and the high-spending, high-taxing Democrats. At least in one election cycle.
It was not lead by the Republican party but by regular people.
Get that David Frum? David Brooks? Christopher Buckley? Peggy Noonan? And especially for you, Kathleen Parker?
People power!
Most important is that it began an era of Republican and conservative governance.
While the election of President Obama and the gains of the Democrats in last year's vote may signal and end to it, the chances are that because many people are still not all trusting of government to handle our most critical problems, the Republicans-conservative Republicans-can come back and quite possibly be a brake on some of President Obama's more radical initiatives.
The 2012 mid term election is shaping up to be a very interesting one. If the right people are willing to read the tea leaves, so to speak, and act accordingly.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
California Voters Being Asked To Sign Our Own Death Sentence
The California political "leadership", starting with Gov. Benedict Arnold flowing down to the Democrat and Republican leaders in the state legislature is really pulling a fast one on the voters of the once Golden State and essentially asking us to sign our own death sentence.
In the so-called budget deal that Gov. Benedict Arnold worked out with the Democrats and Republicans that could be peeled off, a total of six initiatives will be put on a ballot for a special election on May 19.
Amazingly, while we are told that the state of California teeters on bankruptcy, there is enough money to stage this special election. Hmm, I seem to remember when Gov. Benedict Arnold was the Governator. He wanted the voters to approve some common sense measures that may have averted some of this mess. We were told by same Democrats and their state union allies that it was a waste of time and money. Well, I guess getting the state voters to drink the tax hike Kool-Aid, money is no object.
Now that the Governator has become Gov. Benedict Arnold, we have found just enough money to ask the voters to approve the following measures:
Proposition 1A: If voters approve it, the temporary sales tax hike will be extended until June 2012. It would also put a 5-percent-a-year cap on legislative spending increases.
Proposition 1B: Would shift $8 billion from the general fund into the state's schools fund beginning in 2011, only if Prop. 1A also passes.
Proposition 1C: Would allow the state to sell $5 billion in future state lottery proceeds and use them to fill budget gaps.
Proposition 1D: Would shift Prop. 10 cigarette tax revenue away from preschools to other children's programs for five years.
Proposition 1E: Proposes shifting state money out of a voter-approved mental health screening fund to pay for low-income children's medical screenings. The screenings would have been paid through the general fund. But the shift could make up for cuts to the fund, officials said.
Proposition 1F: Would ban lawmakers from giving themselves raises in deficit years.
Where does one begin?
Prop 1A. The California voters are being asked to tax themselves for a while, until 2012 and the legislature will supposedly cap any spending increases at five percent. That can happen right now. The governor and legislature could have said that the state sales tax hike, from seven percent to eight percent is for one year and that there could be serious budget cuts now. When there is more money after the sales tax hike expired, then there could be no hikes over five percent. This is nothing but a political CYA. And we are being asked to CTA-Cover THEIR A---s.
Prop 1B is a little pot sweetener. You know, if you are willing to tax yourselves now, we your public servants will add more money to schools. Please! Do these ignoramuses think that we are that stupid? They must for they are asking us to vote on it. Right now, because of a vote of the people, a full 40 percent of the state budget is allocated for schools across the state. This is a pointless attempt to bribe some voters.
Prop 1C is a convoluted way to convince voters that the state lottery will save us from all of our worries. Just as it was supposed to be the funding savior for our schools. If that was the case, there would have never been a need to pass a proposition that allocated a set amount for school funding. This is true flim-flam.
Prop 1D is absolute robbery. Prop 10 was a hike in the cigarette tax to fund preschools and other children programs. It was passed by the majority of the state voters. Why Rob Meathead Reiner and then Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to pass the tax hike and fund these programs.
And really. Does any sane person think that robbing this fund is a one-time endeavor for these clowns that we keep sending back to Sacramento? Just as Prop 1A is a fraud, this is too. And it is robbery.
Prop 1E follows the same robbery formula that is found is Prop 1D. Only the legislature would take money from mentally ill people. I guess they do not have a strong enough lobby to stop this. Again, this was a measure passed by the voters of California. It is a bald-faced way to circumvent the will of the people. The voters wanted to hike cigarette taxes to pay for preschool and other children's programs. And voters wanted to provide the money for mental health screenings. Whether one was for them or not, this is not a way to try to stop the budget deficit that is killing California.
Prop 1F is a big F--- You to the voters. It says that legislators can not vote themselves a pay raise in years in which there is budget deficit. Except that they took theirs for this year already!
Here are some actual solutions that should be tried.
First, a total freeze on state spending. No one gets any raises anywhere in government. Then, take and make cuts across the board to all spending at least five percent. No program can expand at all. It must be cut.
Second, do not raise the state sales tax but cut the tax to five percent. Why? People would buy a lot more high-ticket items that would make up for the loss in state tax revenue. Same with the state income tax. A cut in that would spur investment in updating and expanding some companies.
Third, cut out pointless regulation. There is so much red-tape to get anything done in this state. cutting many redundant regulations that could expand business in the state, which would pay employees and taxes would be a benefit to all.
Lastly, instead of a toothless we won't get raises when we can not do our job, here is one the legislators ought to do. Put an initiative on the state ballot that would return their jobs to part-time jobs. You know, a legislature that meets like 60 days a year and the same people can live like the rest of us. Go to the jobs of being lawyers, doctors, business people, firemen, policemen and the like. Then they could see how the rest of us live with the laws that they foist upon us.
It would really be something for those that we elect to actually do something different and courageous.
But instead, they are asking us, the California voter, to join them in drinking the tax and spend Kool-Aid.
Our only response has to be to vote NO on all six measures and make these people do their jobs. Do not blame us, the people, for your inability to do right by the people of this state.
Oh, keep this in mind. After all of this, there may still be an $8,000,000,000 state budget deficit to deal with. What will our governor and legislature do about that?
In the so-called budget deal that Gov. Benedict Arnold worked out with the Democrats and Republicans that could be peeled off, a total of six initiatives will be put on a ballot for a special election on May 19.
Amazingly, while we are told that the state of California teeters on bankruptcy, there is enough money to stage this special election. Hmm, I seem to remember when Gov. Benedict Arnold was the Governator. He wanted the voters to approve some common sense measures that may have averted some of this mess. We were told by same Democrats and their state union allies that it was a waste of time and money. Well, I guess getting the state voters to drink the tax hike Kool-Aid, money is no object.
Now that the Governator has become Gov. Benedict Arnold, we have found just enough money to ask the voters to approve the following measures:
Proposition 1A: If voters approve it, the temporary sales tax hike will be extended until June 2012. It would also put a 5-percent-a-year cap on legislative spending increases.
Proposition 1B: Would shift $8 billion from the general fund into the state's schools fund beginning in 2011, only if Prop. 1A also passes.
Proposition 1C: Would allow the state to sell $5 billion in future state lottery proceeds and use them to fill budget gaps.
Proposition 1D: Would shift Prop. 10 cigarette tax revenue away from preschools to other children's programs for five years.
Proposition 1E: Proposes shifting state money out of a voter-approved mental health screening fund to pay for low-income children's medical screenings. The screenings would have been paid through the general fund. But the shift could make up for cuts to the fund, officials said.
Proposition 1F: Would ban lawmakers from giving themselves raises in deficit years.
Where does one begin?
Prop 1A. The California voters are being asked to tax themselves for a while, until 2012 and the legislature will supposedly cap any spending increases at five percent. That can happen right now. The governor and legislature could have said that the state sales tax hike, from seven percent to eight percent is for one year and that there could be serious budget cuts now. When there is more money after the sales tax hike expired, then there could be no hikes over five percent. This is nothing but a political CYA. And we are being asked to CTA-Cover THEIR A---s.
Prop 1B is a little pot sweetener. You know, if you are willing to tax yourselves now, we your public servants will add more money to schools. Please! Do these ignoramuses think that we are that stupid? They must for they are asking us to vote on it. Right now, because of a vote of the people, a full 40 percent of the state budget is allocated for schools across the state. This is a pointless attempt to bribe some voters.
Prop 1C is a convoluted way to convince voters that the state lottery will save us from all of our worries. Just as it was supposed to be the funding savior for our schools. If that was the case, there would have never been a need to pass a proposition that allocated a set amount for school funding. This is true flim-flam.
Prop 1D is absolute robbery. Prop 10 was a hike in the cigarette tax to fund preschools and other children programs. It was passed by the majority of the state voters. Why Rob Meathead Reiner and then Arnold Schwarzenegger worked together to pass the tax hike and fund these programs.
And really. Does any sane person think that robbing this fund is a one-time endeavor for these clowns that we keep sending back to Sacramento? Just as Prop 1A is a fraud, this is too. And it is robbery.
Prop 1E follows the same robbery formula that is found is Prop 1D. Only the legislature would take money from mentally ill people. I guess they do not have a strong enough lobby to stop this. Again, this was a measure passed by the voters of California. It is a bald-faced way to circumvent the will of the people. The voters wanted to hike cigarette taxes to pay for preschool and other children's programs. And voters wanted to provide the money for mental health screenings. Whether one was for them or not, this is not a way to try to stop the budget deficit that is killing California.
Prop 1F is a big F--- You to the voters. It says that legislators can not vote themselves a pay raise in years in which there is budget deficit. Except that they took theirs for this year already!
Here are some actual solutions that should be tried.
First, a total freeze on state spending. No one gets any raises anywhere in government. Then, take and make cuts across the board to all spending at least five percent. No program can expand at all. It must be cut.
Second, do not raise the state sales tax but cut the tax to five percent. Why? People would buy a lot more high-ticket items that would make up for the loss in state tax revenue. Same with the state income tax. A cut in that would spur investment in updating and expanding some companies.
Third, cut out pointless regulation. There is so much red-tape to get anything done in this state. cutting many redundant regulations that could expand business in the state, which would pay employees and taxes would be a benefit to all.
Lastly, instead of a toothless we won't get raises when we can not do our job, here is one the legislators ought to do. Put an initiative on the state ballot that would return their jobs to part-time jobs. You know, a legislature that meets like 60 days a year and the same people can live like the rest of us. Go to the jobs of being lawyers, doctors, business people, firemen, policemen and the like. Then they could see how the rest of us live with the laws that they foist upon us.
It would really be something for those that we elect to actually do something different and courageous.
But instead, they are asking us, the California voter, to join them in drinking the tax and spend Kool-Aid.
Our only response has to be to vote NO on all six measures and make these people do their jobs. Do not blame us, the people, for your inability to do right by the people of this state.
Oh, keep this in mind. After all of this, there may still be an $8,000,000,000 state budget deficit to deal with. What will our governor and legislature do about that?
Why Frum's Straying Off The Reservation Matters
As you may know, I have been trying to fight my own little push back against so-called conservative Republican David Frum. Yes, it is a lot of inside stuff to a lot of people. But it is important to see why when people who are conservatives stray and get the loving from the Beautiful People, it is not a good thing for conservatism and or the Republican party.
Over at The Other McCain, Robert Stacy McCain has been "fisking" David Brooks for claiming to be a conservative. And, he is spot on about that. Mr. Brooks is not and has not been a conservative for a long time. But I have wondered why he has not joined the resistance to Mr. Frum.
In this post, he makes some salient points about Mr. Frum. At least over at the New Majority, there are some good conservative writers. And a lot of wusses. But, that and some history that Mr. McCain and Mr. Frum may have I think is clouding the judgement.
Here is why.
Mr. Frum made a very public break from his relationship with National Review magazine. It was not just to start the New Majority, but to imply that National Review is not that important in conservative thought any longer. That is very, very wrong. It is as important as is The Weekly Standard and The American Spectator. And while I do not think much about The American Conservative, for them I have the broken clock theory. Twice a day, a broken clock is right. So, Mr. Frum could have left National Review on good terms and added to the debate among conservatives. But, he had a pettiness about him. And aura of superiority.
For the record, as much as Mr. Frum has made me mad, I do think that the New Majority has some good writing and good writers. I do read a lot of it and even will link to an article that I think is worth reading.
Back to Mr. Frum.
Upon the launch of the New Majority website, he used it to bludgeon Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh?!
Well, he did not like that Mr. Limbaugh was the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Committee annual confab in Washington, D. C. . And he did not just bludgeon him using his website. Mr. Frum used one of the pinnacles of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media outlets-Newsweek magazine. And the honor that Newsweek gave Mr. Frum was his bash of Rush the front page photo and the main story.
OK, do you want more?
Here is more.
Mr. Frum was an early supporter and advisor to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It is not a secret that Mayor Rudy was the most liberal Republican to run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. And, the much ballyhooed campaign pretty much made a big, fat THUD! Mayor Rudy, who garnered a lot of conservative supporters did not even make any kind of last stand in Florida. A stand that he promised supporters he would make.
A lot of the reason that Mr. Frum supported Mayor Rudy is why a lot of people, your humble blogger included, California's current governor, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. To gain the support of people in the middle. And, as Mr. Frum himself would argue, the kind of people who live in Connecticut in the upper-class suburbs and the like.
What does not seem to get through to Mr. Frum and those that think like him is that they are not the loyalist of supporters. They basically stick their finger in their mouth, for moistness, take it out, stick it up to the wind and follow where the wind is blowing. And for them, sometimes it is with conservatives and the Republicans and sometimes it is not. Many of these people voted for President Obama. And maybe, just maybe they will vote Republican again.
And for Mr. Frum, he would just like the so-called culture wars to go away. Just do not need to talk about same-sex marriage. The decline of traditional marriage. Abortion. Anything that most people find difficult to talk about without the veins popping out of their neck.
But, Mr. Frum, here is a news flash. They are not going away anytime soon. If ever in our lifetimes. They are but a few social issues. Criminal justice is another. It used to be the social issue for conservatives. Another is protecting the borders of the United States. And, people like Mr. Frum's stand on how to do that and grant outright amnesty to 12,000,000 to 24,000,000 of those here illegally. These all count as social issues. And no conservative should be afraid to talk about them among each other and the Beautiful People.
I look to my displeasure with Mr. Frum and those like him as an intervention. I really think that he is a conservative. Fine, he does not need to address the pesky social issues. But some of us do and will. I do not like the fact that this family feud is out there for all to see. But it is and we need to get this resolved now.
The real enemy is President Obama, his administration and the current Democrat party.
It is why we need the kind of person like David Frum on the reservation. We need some one to spend the valuable time of the New Majority pointing out the wrongs of the other side.
I want Mr. Frum to come back and we can work together to bring in people to the conservative Republican cause.
But until then, Mr. Frum will be pointed out for doing our cause wrong.
Over at The Other McCain, Robert Stacy McCain has been "fisking" David Brooks for claiming to be a conservative. And, he is spot on about that. Mr. Brooks is not and has not been a conservative for a long time. But I have wondered why he has not joined the resistance to Mr. Frum.
In this post, he makes some salient points about Mr. Frum. At least over at the New Majority, there are some good conservative writers. And a lot of wusses. But, that and some history that Mr. McCain and Mr. Frum may have I think is clouding the judgement.
Here is why.
Mr. Frum made a very public break from his relationship with National Review magazine. It was not just to start the New Majority, but to imply that National Review is not that important in conservative thought any longer. That is very, very wrong. It is as important as is The Weekly Standard and The American Spectator. And while I do not think much about The American Conservative, for them I have the broken clock theory. Twice a day, a broken clock is right. So, Mr. Frum could have left National Review on good terms and added to the debate among conservatives. But, he had a pettiness about him. And aura of superiority.
For the record, as much as Mr. Frum has made me mad, I do think that the New Majority has some good writing and good writers. I do read a lot of it and even will link to an article that I think is worth reading.
Back to Mr. Frum.
Upon the launch of the New Majority website, he used it to bludgeon Rush Limbaugh.
Rush Limbaugh?!
Well, he did not like that Mr. Limbaugh was the keynote speaker at the Conservative Political Action Committee annual confab in Washington, D. C. . And he did not just bludgeon him using his website. Mr. Frum used one of the pinnacles of the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media outlets-Newsweek magazine. And the honor that Newsweek gave Mr. Frum was his bash of Rush the front page photo and the main story.
OK, do you want more?
Here is more.
Mr. Frum was an early supporter and advisor to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani. It is not a secret that Mayor Rudy was the most liberal Republican to run for the Republican nomination for president in 2008. And, the much ballyhooed campaign pretty much made a big, fat THUD! Mayor Rudy, who garnered a lot of conservative supporters did not even make any kind of last stand in Florida. A stand that he promised supporters he would make.
A lot of the reason that Mr. Frum supported Mayor Rudy is why a lot of people, your humble blogger included, California's current governor, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. To gain the support of people in the middle. And, as Mr. Frum himself would argue, the kind of people who live in Connecticut in the upper-class suburbs and the like.
What does not seem to get through to Mr. Frum and those that think like him is that they are not the loyalist of supporters. They basically stick their finger in their mouth, for moistness, take it out, stick it up to the wind and follow where the wind is blowing. And for them, sometimes it is with conservatives and the Republicans and sometimes it is not. Many of these people voted for President Obama. And maybe, just maybe they will vote Republican again.
And for Mr. Frum, he would just like the so-called culture wars to go away. Just do not need to talk about same-sex marriage. The decline of traditional marriage. Abortion. Anything that most people find difficult to talk about without the veins popping out of their neck.
But, Mr. Frum, here is a news flash. They are not going away anytime soon. If ever in our lifetimes. They are but a few social issues. Criminal justice is another. It used to be the social issue for conservatives. Another is protecting the borders of the United States. And, people like Mr. Frum's stand on how to do that and grant outright amnesty to 12,000,000 to 24,000,000 of those here illegally. These all count as social issues. And no conservative should be afraid to talk about them among each other and the Beautiful People.
I look to my displeasure with Mr. Frum and those like him as an intervention. I really think that he is a conservative. Fine, he does not need to address the pesky social issues. But some of us do and will. I do not like the fact that this family feud is out there for all to see. But it is and we need to get this resolved now.
The real enemy is President Obama, his administration and the current Democrat party.
It is why we need the kind of person like David Frum on the reservation. We need some one to spend the valuable time of the New Majority pointing out the wrongs of the other side.
I want Mr. Frum to come back and we can work together to bring in people to the conservative Republican cause.
But until then, Mr. Frum will be pointed out for doing our cause wrong.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Sen. Feinstein Blocking Renewable Energy
God Bless Sen. Dianne Feinstein. I mean, I know and understand that she means well and all, but this proposal to shut down 500,000 acres of desert in the Mojave Desert is, well something only one with a bad case of heatstroke would think makes sense.
The argument that Sen. Feinstein is making is that the land was purchased for the expressed purpose of preserving a so-called delicate ecosystem.
Fine, that maybe the case.
But it calls into question the fact that anytime there is a proposal to do something like wind and or solar power, up comes a Democrat finding some excuse to block it.
Take the case of the Massachusetts Democrat warhorse, Sen. Teddy Kennedy.
He blocked a coastal wind farm near the family compound in Hyanis Point. Because it would be an eyesore and block the view.
Now, Sen. Feinstein is going the same route.
Not all that far from rightviewfromtheleftcoast headquarters, near Palm Springs in fact, is a large swath of windmills along Interstate 10. Far from being an eyesore, they break the monotony of driving in the desert. Trust me, it is a looooonnnnggg drive. And boring.
The windmills provide much needed power to the residents of Palm Springs and the surrounding communities. And they are no where in or near any of the cities of the Coachella Valley.
The fact is that 19 companies are expressing interest in the land in the Mojave Desert that Sen. Feinstein wants to become a national monument so there will not be anything done to it.
The only way that there is going to be any way to see if wind and or solar power is going to be a viable option is to build the windmills and solar panels.
Not doing so seems to indicate that those who claim to favor it really do not. If they did, they would be in front of finding land and areas to let companies develop and once and for all we, the American public, can have some idea of the viability that advocates speak of.
Eventually, if every senator takes the Feinstein and Kennedy approach, there will be no area to develop alternative energy.
This should not pass and the land should be developed. It has to be made clear, as President Obama has made, that finding a way to become energy independent is a matter of national security. Not a matter of preserving a lot of sand and tumbleweeds.
The argument that Sen. Feinstein is making is that the land was purchased for the expressed purpose of preserving a so-called delicate ecosystem.
Fine, that maybe the case.
But it calls into question the fact that anytime there is a proposal to do something like wind and or solar power, up comes a Democrat finding some excuse to block it.
Take the case of the Massachusetts Democrat warhorse, Sen. Teddy Kennedy.
He blocked a coastal wind farm near the family compound in Hyanis Point. Because it would be an eyesore and block the view.
Now, Sen. Feinstein is going the same route.
Not all that far from rightviewfromtheleftcoast headquarters, near Palm Springs in fact, is a large swath of windmills along Interstate 10. Far from being an eyesore, they break the monotony of driving in the desert. Trust me, it is a looooonnnnggg drive. And boring.
The windmills provide much needed power to the residents of Palm Springs and the surrounding communities. And they are no where in or near any of the cities of the Coachella Valley.
The fact is that 19 companies are expressing interest in the land in the Mojave Desert that Sen. Feinstein wants to become a national monument so there will not be anything done to it.
The only way that there is going to be any way to see if wind and or solar power is going to be a viable option is to build the windmills and solar panels.
Not doing so seems to indicate that those who claim to favor it really do not. If they did, they would be in front of finding land and areas to let companies develop and once and for all we, the American public, can have some idea of the viability that advocates speak of.
Eventually, if every senator takes the Feinstein and Kennedy approach, there will be no area to develop alternative energy.
This should not pass and the land should be developed. It has to be made clear, as President Obama has made, that finding a way to become energy independent is a matter of national security. Not a matter of preserving a lot of sand and tumbleweeds.
Friday, March 20, 2009
Michael Steele Not That Bad At All
As the Republican National Committee Chair, one of the most important jobs is to raise money for the party. And new Chair, Michael Steele, has done just that having a better February than his Democrat party counterpart, Virginia governor Tim Kaine.
According to numbers released today, Mr. Steele did almost a two-to-one better job in the fundraising front. The RNC raised $5,500,000 compared to the DNC raising $3,260,000 in February. Of course the linked article makes an excuse that Gov. Kaine could not be actively involved in fundraising due to having to wait until the Virginia general assembly adjourned. It says that Gov. Kaine is a "part-time" chair. Right.
Another bit of great news is that the RNC has $24,000,000 in the bank and no debt. The DNC has $8,600,000 on hand. But the same DNC is $7,000,000 in debt. Kind of like the way the Democrat politicians are running the United States at this moment.
While there are only two major elections this year, for governors of New Jersey and Virginia, the fact that the RNC has a lot of money in the bank and is out raising the DNC is a good sign.
Of course, most important is how the money is used and if it leads to election victories. And the news looks good on that front as well.
A big test will come on March 31 as voters in New York state in the 20th congressional district will go to the polls to elect now Sen. Kristin Gillebrand's successor. Most polls show the Republican candidate, Jim Tedisco, ahead of his Democrat opponent, Scott Murphy. But the polls have tightened and it may end up being a closer than necessary race in what had been a reliable Republican district. I noted earlier that a loss for the Republicans should not cost Mr. Steele his job in the least. But it would be a bad start considering that public opinion is, ever so slightly, beginning to turn on President Obama, the Democrat party and their overall agenda.
So far in what counts, money, Michael Steele is doing quite well and some Republican wins in these off-year elections will be a great indicator of the voters mood come the mid-term elections in 2010.
According to numbers released today, Mr. Steele did almost a two-to-one better job in the fundraising front. The RNC raised $5,500,000 compared to the DNC raising $3,260,000 in February. Of course the linked article makes an excuse that Gov. Kaine could not be actively involved in fundraising due to having to wait until the Virginia general assembly adjourned. It says that Gov. Kaine is a "part-time" chair. Right.
Another bit of great news is that the RNC has $24,000,000 in the bank and no debt. The DNC has $8,600,000 on hand. But the same DNC is $7,000,000 in debt. Kind of like the way the Democrat politicians are running the United States at this moment.
While there are only two major elections this year, for governors of New Jersey and Virginia, the fact that the RNC has a lot of money in the bank and is out raising the DNC is a good sign.
Of course, most important is how the money is used and if it leads to election victories. And the news looks good on that front as well.
A big test will come on March 31 as voters in New York state in the 20th congressional district will go to the polls to elect now Sen. Kristin Gillebrand's successor. Most polls show the Republican candidate, Jim Tedisco, ahead of his Democrat opponent, Scott Murphy. But the polls have tightened and it may end up being a closer than necessary race in what had been a reliable Republican district. I noted earlier that a loss for the Republicans should not cost Mr. Steele his job in the least. But it would be a bad start considering that public opinion is, ever so slightly, beginning to turn on President Obama, the Democrat party and their overall agenda.
So far in what counts, money, Michael Steele is doing quite well and some Republican wins in these off-year elections will be a great indicator of the voters mood come the mid-term elections in 2010.
Presidential Gaffes: Bush Was An Idiot, Obama Is Human
Good Lord!
It is amazing how the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media makes excuse after excuse for President Obama and his, well, gaffes. All made when the teleprompter is not in front of his face.
Consider this little apology from one Lili Ladaga.
The last sentence is a doozy:
But in a way, it's heartening to hear our politicians stumble over words, mangle syntax and make inappropriate jokes. It shows politicians are human, too. Sometimes.
What a load of crap!
The same Miss Ladaga spends most of this writing with some stock former President Bush 43 gaffes. And notes how easy that is. To be fair, she does give a gentle ribbing to the current Vice-President, Joe Biden, and his mental prowess.
But, really, if any Republican made the same crack that President Obama comparing his well known bowling skills to that of how scores are in the Special Olympics, we know that it would be a stop the presses, HOW DARE HE or SHE! It is the double standard. And I know, we conservatives should be used to it. And, we are. But, it is still infuriating and knowing that it is not the first time President Obama has strayed into this dung shows how, well immature he really is.
Yes, I will write that former President Bush 43 was not the most articulate president we ever had. But, he was not so crass as the current White House occupant. I guess it is just part of the humanness to slam Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the infamous lipstick on a pig comment. Or slamming Jessica Simpson and her ever so slight weight gain. I'm sorry, her making the cover of some fluff magazine over the Obama family, well that must have set off President Obama. It is a pattern and not a good one.
Bottom line. Former President Bush is an idiot for his gaffes. President Obama is just so human.
Hope and Change Baby! Hope and Change!
It is amazing how the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media makes excuse after excuse for President Obama and his, well, gaffes. All made when the teleprompter is not in front of his face.
Consider this little apology from one Lili Ladaga.
The last sentence is a doozy:
But in a way, it's heartening to hear our politicians stumble over words, mangle syntax and make inappropriate jokes. It shows politicians are human, too. Sometimes.
What a load of crap!
The same Miss Ladaga spends most of this writing with some stock former President Bush 43 gaffes. And notes how easy that is. To be fair, she does give a gentle ribbing to the current Vice-President, Joe Biden, and his mental prowess.
But, really, if any Republican made the same crack that President Obama comparing his well known bowling skills to that of how scores are in the Special Olympics, we know that it would be a stop the presses, HOW DARE HE or SHE! It is the double standard. And I know, we conservatives should be used to it. And, we are. But, it is still infuriating and knowing that it is not the first time President Obama has strayed into this dung shows how, well immature he really is.
Yes, I will write that former President Bush 43 was not the most articulate president we ever had. But, he was not so crass as the current White House occupant. I guess it is just part of the humanness to slam Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the infamous lipstick on a pig comment. Or slamming Jessica Simpson and her ever so slight weight gain. I'm sorry, her making the cover of some fluff magazine over the Obama family, well that must have set off President Obama. It is a pattern and not a good one.
Bottom line. Former President Bush is an idiot for his gaffes. President Obama is just so human.
Hope and Change Baby! Hope and Change!
Keep It Classy, President Obama
UPDATE:
Here is Hugh Hewitt's take on the class that is President Barack H. Obama. It seems to be A-OK to make such an off-handed comment, but remember a city council member in Los Alamitos, California resigned over e-mailing an equally offensive photo of the White House turned into a watermelon patch. Remember, it is not a campaign any longer. This is the president of the United States.
In President Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, it appears that he forgot the handy teleprompter.
Had President Obama had the handy dandy prompter, he may have avoided this beaut:
Towards the end of his approximately 40-minute appearance, the president talked about how he's gotten better at bowling and has been practicing in the White House bowling alley.
He bowled a 129, the president said.
"That's very good, Mr. President," Leno said sarcastically.
It's "like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.
Outstanding!
Had any given Republican made the same off-handed remark, hell hath no fury.
But after all, it is our illustrious president. The man that almost always takes his teleprompter everywhere.
Too bad he forgot it at this appearance.
Maybe he should just have it on his head.
Oh wait! I think that he does:
Keep it classy President Obama, keep it classy!
Here is Hugh Hewitt's take on the class that is President Barack H. Obama. It seems to be A-OK to make such an off-handed comment, but remember a city council member in Los Alamitos, California resigned over e-mailing an equally offensive photo of the White House turned into a watermelon patch. Remember, it is not a campaign any longer. This is the president of the United States.
In President Obama's appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, it appears that he forgot the handy teleprompter.
Had President Obama had the handy dandy prompter, he may have avoided this beaut:
Towards the end of his approximately 40-minute appearance, the president talked about how he's gotten better at bowling and has been practicing in the White House bowling alley.
He bowled a 129, the president said.
"That's very good, Mr. President," Leno said sarcastically.
It's "like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.
Outstanding!
Had any given Republican made the same off-handed remark, hell hath no fury.
But after all, it is our illustrious president. The man that almost always takes his teleprompter everywhere.
Too bad he forgot it at this appearance.
Maybe he should just have it on his head.
Oh wait! I think that he does:
Keep it classy President Obama, keep it classy!
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
A Little Message For All You Sarah Palin Haters
We are now a mere 60 days into the Age o' Obama and many people are now realizing how inept and dangerous President Obama is, has been and will continue to be in the Oval Office.
This little piece in the DC Examiner from Noemie Emery that takes to task all of those who spread the fear of the possibility that Alaska governor Sarah Palin could have been the vice-president.
Yes, it would have been a disaster to have Gov. Palin in the vice-president's chair while the stock market went on it's 2,000 point nose dive. Oh yes, how can we forget the current occupant of the vice-president's chair, Joe Biden. I mean, he just does not know the website number to the internet site of the recovery office he is in charge of. I'm sorry, that is website address. But this is the massive brain that is Joe Biden.
Or how about saying such insipid things as that democracy in the United States is older than that in Europe? OK, that was the intellectual Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Oh, and she could not even pronounce European leaders' names. And her minions at the state department could not even get the Russian translation right for "reset".
Could you imagine if a Vice-President Palin had admitted that she was overwhelmed with the task of being the vice-president? Well, President Obama did. That was the reason given to the Daily Telegraph in London over the shabby treatment their Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, received at the hands of the most brilliant administration ever. So brilliant that they gave Prime Minister Brown a box set of movie DVDs that I could have got down at Blockbuster.
But no, Gov. Palin was an "embarrassment" according to Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley. Hmm, was not young Mr. Buckley involved in a nasty divorce because he was cheating on his wife? Hmm, now that is an embarrassment!
Why, Gov. Palin only graduated from the University of Idaho. IDAHO?! Is that even a part of the United States? Must be what the elites were thinking trashing that fact. No, how dare someone of her "qualifications" think that she should be anywhere near Washington D. C.!
And yet, some of these so-called conservatives were taken in by a smooth-talker from Chicago that promised Hope and Change. That he would right all the wrongs of the United States. That he would make the oceans recede. Now that is beautiful rhetoric, but can no longer hide the fact that he has no idea of what he is doing.
We have a vice-president in Joe Biden that can not get anything right, when he is not lifting language from British political leaders. There is Mrs. Clinton at the state department and it is obvious that she is in way over her head. And let us not forget Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner at Treasury. He is one of those that engineered the brilliant AIG "bailout" strategy that has so far bled the American taxpayers only $173,000,000,000 while helping out foreign banks and his former Goldman Sachs compadres.
Yes, the United States is so much better off that Gov. Sarah Palin and her running mate, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain did not get to the Oval Office. We are seeing only the beginning of the Gang That Can Not Govern Straight and the havoc they have wrought and will continue to do so.
This little piece in the DC Examiner from Noemie Emery that takes to task all of those who spread the fear of the possibility that Alaska governor Sarah Palin could have been the vice-president.
Yes, it would have been a disaster to have Gov. Palin in the vice-president's chair while the stock market went on it's 2,000 point nose dive. Oh yes, how can we forget the current occupant of the vice-president's chair, Joe Biden. I mean, he just does not know the website number to the internet site of the recovery office he is in charge of. I'm sorry, that is website address. But this is the massive brain that is Joe Biden.
Or how about saying such insipid things as that democracy in the United States is older than that in Europe? OK, that was the intellectual Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Oh, and she could not even pronounce European leaders' names. And her minions at the state department could not even get the Russian translation right for "reset".
Could you imagine if a Vice-President Palin had admitted that she was overwhelmed with the task of being the vice-president? Well, President Obama did. That was the reason given to the Daily Telegraph in London over the shabby treatment their Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, received at the hands of the most brilliant administration ever. So brilliant that they gave Prime Minister Brown a box set of movie DVDs that I could have got down at Blockbuster.
But no, Gov. Palin was an "embarrassment" according to Christopher Buckley, son of the late William F. Buckley. Hmm, was not young Mr. Buckley involved in a nasty divorce because he was cheating on his wife? Hmm, now that is an embarrassment!
Why, Gov. Palin only graduated from the University of Idaho. IDAHO?! Is that even a part of the United States? Must be what the elites were thinking trashing that fact. No, how dare someone of her "qualifications" think that she should be anywhere near Washington D. C.!
And yet, some of these so-called conservatives were taken in by a smooth-talker from Chicago that promised Hope and Change. That he would right all the wrongs of the United States. That he would make the oceans recede. Now that is beautiful rhetoric, but can no longer hide the fact that he has no idea of what he is doing.
We have a vice-president in Joe Biden that can not get anything right, when he is not lifting language from British political leaders. There is Mrs. Clinton at the state department and it is obvious that she is in way over her head. And let us not forget Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner at Treasury. He is one of those that engineered the brilliant AIG "bailout" strategy that has so far bled the American taxpayers only $173,000,000,000 while helping out foreign banks and his former Goldman Sachs compadres.
Yes, the United States is so much better off that Gov. Sarah Palin and her running mate, Sen. John "F--- You" McCain did not get to the Oval Office. We are seeing only the beginning of the Gang That Can Not Govern Straight and the havoc they have wrought and will continue to do so.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
More David I Hate Rush Frum Bashing
This little story by Jeffrey Lord over at The American Spectator is a humorous look at David Frum and his ascension as conservative cult master with the chattering classes in Washington, D. C.
It is a good laugh, but the serious point is clear. That David Frum is a prisoner of the Beltway. That he does not realize the eventuality of the Republicans making a comeback will not be just a Beltway production. It will come from the states and some governors. And some state legislatures that will try new approaches. And that threatens the power that people like Mr. Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan have suddenly received, courtesy of the Beltway DDBMOWM.
It is a good time to remember all of this as the cult of the Beltway continues to try to diminish those outside their orbit.
Now, who will the people favor in this battle?
It is a good laugh, but the serious point is clear. That David Frum is a prisoner of the Beltway. That he does not realize the eventuality of the Republicans making a comeback will not be just a Beltway production. It will come from the states and some governors. And some state legislatures that will try new approaches. And that threatens the power that people like Mr. Frum, David Brooks, Kathleen Parker and Peggy Noonan have suddenly received, courtesy of the Beltway DDBMOWM.
It is a good time to remember all of this as the cult of the Beltway continues to try to diminish those outside their orbit.
Now, who will the people favor in this battle?
The AIG Mess-Lies, Damned Lies And More Damned Lies
While the troubled insurance giant AIG is fulfilling contractual obligations in doling out $165,000,000 in bonuses, it is getting it clocked cleaned by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
And while the political class is piling on AIG from President Obama down to the most insignificant congressman, there needs to be a little bit of standing back to see where the mess started and how you and I-the American taxpayer-are on the hook for $173,000,000,000 and counting to "bailout" AIG.
This editorial in today's Wall Street Journal is a great place to start.
What we find out is that a lot of politicians were involved in the beginning of this mess.
In 2005, the former and disgraced New York governor, Elliot Spitzer, forced the former AIG Chair, Hank Greenberg, out. Once Mr. Greenberg was ousted, the AAA rating that AIG had went out the window and, like many an American bank, they got in on the housing market and put all its eggs in that basket.
Too bad.
Oh, and despite what you will read in the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media, there was a lot of government oversight on AIG. They were going down with a lot of regulators watching and saying "no problem" even though there were many problems. Scott Polakoff of the Office of Thrift Supervision said that his agency and a "college" of international regulators were supposed to be keeping AIG in line. Why it was state, federal and even international regulators were keeping their eye on AIG.
Do you want to know the real outrage? I will write that it is not $165,000,000 in bonuses being doled out. The real outrage that in the dead of a Sunday night, the world finds out that at least $120,000,000,000 of the money that you and I have given to AIG has gone to such people as American municipalities, American banks and European banks and derivative counterparties. But, and astounding $13,000,000,000 went to Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs? Why I thought that Goldman Sachs people would solve all of our problems. That is where the previous Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, came from. And the current boy wonder, Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner, is also from Goldman Sachs.
And if you think that is not an outrage, consider this.
Connecticut Democrat senator, Christopher Dodd, protected these bonuses that have the political class ready to tear down the gates to AIG. But, wait, there's more! It appears that Sen. Dodd then proposed to tax the very bonuses that he protected in the original $767,000,000,000 so-called economic "stimulus" bill. Oh, as a side note, Sen. Dodd was the largest senate recipient of donations from AIG at $103,100.
So, those who want to slam the $165,000,000 in bonuses that have been already doled out need to look at the very political class that really created this mess to begin with.
This paragraph from the Wall Street Journal editorial says it all:
Given that the government has never defined "systemic risk," we're also starting to wonder exactly which system American taxpayers are paying to protect. It's not capitalism, in which risk-takers suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And in some cases it's not even American. The U.S. government is now in the business of distributing foreign aid to offshore financiers, laundered through a once-great American company.
And while the political class is piling on AIG from President Obama down to the most insignificant congressman, there needs to be a little bit of standing back to see where the mess started and how you and I-the American taxpayer-are on the hook for $173,000,000,000 and counting to "bailout" AIG.
This editorial in today's Wall Street Journal is a great place to start.
What we find out is that a lot of politicians were involved in the beginning of this mess.
In 2005, the former and disgraced New York governor, Elliot Spitzer, forced the former AIG Chair, Hank Greenberg, out. Once Mr. Greenberg was ousted, the AAA rating that AIG had went out the window and, like many an American bank, they got in on the housing market and put all its eggs in that basket.
Too bad.
Oh, and despite what you will read in the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media, there was a lot of government oversight on AIG. They were going down with a lot of regulators watching and saying "no problem" even though there were many problems. Scott Polakoff of the Office of Thrift Supervision said that his agency and a "college" of international regulators were supposed to be keeping AIG in line. Why it was state, federal and even international regulators were keeping their eye on AIG.
Do you want to know the real outrage? I will write that it is not $165,000,000 in bonuses being doled out. The real outrage that in the dead of a Sunday night, the world finds out that at least $120,000,000,000 of the money that you and I have given to AIG has gone to such people as American municipalities, American banks and European banks and derivative counterparties. But, and astounding $13,000,000,000 went to Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs? Why I thought that Goldman Sachs people would solve all of our problems. That is where the previous Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, came from. And the current boy wonder, Tax Cheat Timmy Geithner, is also from Goldman Sachs.
And if you think that is not an outrage, consider this.
Connecticut Democrat senator, Christopher Dodd, protected these bonuses that have the political class ready to tear down the gates to AIG. But, wait, there's more! It appears that Sen. Dodd then proposed to tax the very bonuses that he protected in the original $767,000,000,000 so-called economic "stimulus" bill. Oh, as a side note, Sen. Dodd was the largest senate recipient of donations from AIG at $103,100.
So, those who want to slam the $165,000,000 in bonuses that have been already doled out need to look at the very political class that really created this mess to begin with.
This paragraph from the Wall Street Journal editorial says it all:
Given that the government has never defined "systemic risk," we're also starting to wonder exactly which system American taxpayers are paying to protect. It's not capitalism, in which risk-takers suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And in some cases it's not even American. The U.S. government is now in the business of distributing foreign aid to offshore financiers, laundered through a once-great American company.
Monday, March 16, 2009
President Obama To Charge Wounded Vets For Health Care-Nice!
It appears that the Obama administration is going to proceed with a plan to charge the private insurance of wounded war veterans to pay for their cost of care in an attempt to save costs to the federal government.
In a word, DISGUSTING!
According to the head of the American Legion, Commander David K. Rehbein, the Obama administration will force private insurers to pay for some of the costs of treatment for veterans that have had war related injuries. One of the valid points that Commander Rehbein pointed out is that many private insurers have deductibles. And some are high. And that is an added cost on a veteran and or his or her family. And not to mention the real possibility that the said insurance premiums will more than likely rise as well. A double whammy to a veteran and his or her family.
Here is the thing.
The government recruits and asks these men and women to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation. Part of that compact should be that the federal government will incur the potential costs of a veterans injuries. Not pawn them off on a private insurance company. No city would do that to their police and or firemen and fire women. And we should expect no less from the federal government when it comes to the health and care of our wounded veterans.
The irony is that this administration is pushing for government funded national health care for all Americans. Would they push out some under a national health care scheme into private insurance when the cost would get too high for the government? Would there be any serious kind of private health insurance left if the Obama administration got their way?
The Obama administration must find a way to make sure that they stand by the federal government's commitment to its veterans and take care of their medical needs. There has to be other ways to make up these shortfalls. Nailing those financially for making the potential ultimate sacrifice is not the way to go for the Obama administration.
In a word, DISGUSTING!
According to the head of the American Legion, Commander David K. Rehbein, the Obama administration will force private insurers to pay for some of the costs of treatment for veterans that have had war related injuries. One of the valid points that Commander Rehbein pointed out is that many private insurers have deductibles. And some are high. And that is an added cost on a veteran and or his or her family. And not to mention the real possibility that the said insurance premiums will more than likely rise as well. A double whammy to a veteran and his or her family.
Here is the thing.
The government recruits and asks these men and women to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice for their nation. Part of that compact should be that the federal government will incur the potential costs of a veterans injuries. Not pawn them off on a private insurance company. No city would do that to their police and or firemen and fire women. And we should expect no less from the federal government when it comes to the health and care of our wounded veterans.
The irony is that this administration is pushing for government funded national health care for all Americans. Would they push out some under a national health care scheme into private insurance when the cost would get too high for the government? Would there be any serious kind of private health insurance left if the Obama administration got their way?
The Obama administration must find a way to make sure that they stand by the federal government's commitment to its veterans and take care of their medical needs. There has to be other ways to make up these shortfalls. Nailing those financially for making the potential ultimate sacrifice is not the way to go for the Obama administration.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
A Photo Collage Of "The Ruins Of Detroit"
This photo essay by two French photographers, Yves Marchand and Romain Meffre appearing in Time magazine dovetails on a somewhat recent post that I did on the decline of the once great Motor City, Detroit, Michigan.
It is hard to believe that there is so much of this in a major American city. Abandonment. A haunting reminder of a city that was once a leading city not only in the United States but the world. A sense of no hope.
But, that is Detroit.
And, the sad fact is that no matter what transpires with the struggles of the Big Three American auto makers, the situation is only getting worse.
I think that one wonders what will it take to get the people of the Motor City to get on the right track.
I know that it can not be what they have been doing for the last 40 plus years.
One thing that I did point out in that post is that there needs to be a concerted effort to transform Detroit from an industrial wasteland to a city that can be like a Silicon Valley. Or one in which multiple service industries build up.
Something has to be done. Because I believe that Detroit is a city worth saving. Or it will look much worse that the photo essay and the accompanying photographer's website photos show today.
HT: John J. Miller @ http://www.corner.nationalreview.com/
Another David Frum STFU Posting
Since so-called conservative Republican David Frum is on a one-man Jihad against the only person willing to articulate and explain conservatism, radio talker Rush Limbaugh, I am reversing the field and making a multi-layred Jihad against Mr. Frum.
And, lo and behold I now have company.
Author Bernard Chapin wrote this excellent piece over at Pajamas Media adding another and obvious layer to the Frum kerfuffle.
The fact that Mr. Frum is all too willing to take his Jihad on Rush with an assist or two in the DDBOWMM.
No, it is not enough for Mr. Frum to use his boorish website, New Majority, to bash Mr. Limbaugh.
But, Mr. Frum is yucking it up with Chris Thrill Up My Leg Matthews on Whiffleball, aka Hardball. And wrote the cover story in this past week's Newsweek bashing Mr. Limbaugh.
Here are the last paragraph's of Mr. Chapin's piece. However, please read the whole thing.
That Frum excoriated Limbaugh in the pages of a roach’s den of radicalism tells us much about his loyalties — he doesn’t have any. Like money deposited from the Reichsbank in the 1940s, there’s blood on the gold from which he was paid. His is a betrayal of biblical proportions: David slept with Goliath.
There is no point in being sensitive in regards to this fellow. He’s crossed the Oprahcon. Despite his Harvard education and bloated curriculum vitae, David Frum is not worthy of licking the tobacco from Limbaugh’s famously nicotine-stained fingers. In the foxhole that is contemporary politics, would you rather fight alongside a lion like Rush Limbaugh or a fop like David Frum? I’ll let readers decide for themselves.
Frum’s new organization aims for “the reform and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.” Apparently, this can only be done by purging known heroes and replacing them with upper-class ninnies who are cherished by bloviating toadies like Chris Matthews.
The new millennium is not an era for milquetoasts. Only a turncoat bashes his own in the camp of the enemy. Traitors should not be mollycoddled.
If we want to build a new majority, Republicans should let David Frum go the way of Scott McClellan.
And, since Mr. Frum does not seem to get the fact that falling into the liberal-left camp in regards to Mr. Limbaugh, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Chapin. Let Mr. Frum go off to the other side. After all, he is using them to peddle a liberal-left talking point.
The fact is that Mr. Frum does not realize how really bad his rant sounds. As I noted in a earlier post, Mr. Frum is taking all of this personally. He really does not expand on the thoughts that he has as to how to get the conservative Republican message out there.
At some point, we have to shun Mr. Frum. Now looks as good a time as any.
I hope to no longer have to write any more of these posts. But, when some one can state the message about Mr. Frum clearly, I will link and comment.
Bernard Chapin is now added to the David Frum, shut the f--- up crowd!
And, lo and behold I now have company.
Author Bernard Chapin wrote this excellent piece over at Pajamas Media adding another and obvious layer to the Frum kerfuffle.
The fact that Mr. Frum is all too willing to take his Jihad on Rush with an assist or two in the DDBOWMM.
No, it is not enough for Mr. Frum to use his boorish website, New Majority, to bash Mr. Limbaugh.
But, Mr. Frum is yucking it up with Chris Thrill Up My Leg Matthews on Whiffleball, aka Hardball. And wrote the cover story in this past week's Newsweek bashing Mr. Limbaugh.
Here are the last paragraph's of Mr. Chapin's piece. However, please read the whole thing.
That Frum excoriated Limbaugh in the pages of a roach’s den of radicalism tells us much about his loyalties — he doesn’t have any. Like money deposited from the Reichsbank in the 1940s, there’s blood on the gold from which he was paid. His is a betrayal of biblical proportions: David slept with Goliath.
There is no point in being sensitive in regards to this fellow. He’s crossed the Oprahcon. Despite his Harvard education and bloated curriculum vitae, David Frum is not worthy of licking the tobacco from Limbaugh’s famously nicotine-stained fingers. In the foxhole that is contemporary politics, would you rather fight alongside a lion like Rush Limbaugh or a fop like David Frum? I’ll let readers decide for themselves.
Frum’s new organization aims for “the reform and renewal of the Republican party and the conservative movement.” Apparently, this can only be done by purging known heroes and replacing them with upper-class ninnies who are cherished by bloviating toadies like Chris Matthews.
The new millennium is not an era for milquetoasts. Only a turncoat bashes his own in the camp of the enemy. Traitors should not be mollycoddled.
If we want to build a new majority, Republicans should let David Frum go the way of Scott McClellan.
And, since Mr. Frum does not seem to get the fact that falling into the liberal-left camp in regards to Mr. Limbaugh, I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Chapin. Let Mr. Frum go off to the other side. After all, he is using them to peddle a liberal-left talking point.
The fact is that Mr. Frum does not realize how really bad his rant sounds. As I noted in a earlier post, Mr. Frum is taking all of this personally. He really does not expand on the thoughts that he has as to how to get the conservative Republican message out there.
At some point, we have to shun Mr. Frum. Now looks as good a time as any.
I hope to no longer have to write any more of these posts. But, when some one can state the message about Mr. Frum clearly, I will link and comment.
Bernard Chapin is now added to the David Frum, shut the f--- up crowd!
Saturday, March 14, 2009
President Obama Said It!
I think that this quote from President Obama's meeting with the Brazilian President, Lulu da Silva, is revealing:
Then he said he would love a trip to the Amazon. He joked that he suspects the Republican Party would like to see him travel through the Amazon and maybe get lost for while.
Well, some of us believe that President Obama has been lost for quite a while now. And, he does not need to spend American taxpayer money to get even more lost.
Then he said he would love a trip to the Amazon. He joked that he suspects the Republican Party would like to see him travel through the Amazon and maybe get lost for while.
Well, some of us believe that President Obama has been lost for quite a while now. And, he does not need to spend American taxpayer money to get even more lost.
Friday, March 13, 2009
A Lefty Quiz
The liberal-left Center For American Progress has a fun, new 40 question quiz that determines where one falls on the political spectrum.
I took it and, surprise, I came out as "extremely" conservative. My score was a 55 out of 400.
According to those who took the quiz, supposedly the average is 209 out of 400.
That maybe true, but one has to wonder who would take such a quiz.
I actually found the quiz on the American Spectator website.
Go figure.
The post's author, Philip Klein, also was tagged as "extremely" conservative. But, he did not reveal his score.
Take the quiz and have some fun.
HT: Philip Klein @ www.spectator.org
I took it and, surprise, I came out as "extremely" conservative. My score was a 55 out of 400.
According to those who took the quiz, supposedly the average is 209 out of 400.
That maybe true, but one has to wonder who would take such a quiz.
I actually found the quiz on the American Spectator website.
Go figure.
The post's author, Philip Klein, also was tagged as "extremely" conservative. But, he did not reveal his score.
Take the quiz and have some fun.
HT: Philip Klein @ www.spectator.org
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Michael Steele Is Not Wrong On Abortion
In a new kerfuffle, Republican National Committee Chair, Michael Steele, seemed to be saying that women have an individual right to choose or not choose to have an abortion.
Well, it is not quite that. But, it is a bit convoluted and shows that Mr. Steele needs to be firm in his pro-life stand and articulate it in a clear, unequivocal manner.
This interview in GQ magazine is a clear attempt by Mr. Steele to reach out to those who may not read anything actually said by a Republican, let alone a conservative. And that is a good thing.
But, lets single out the controversial comment.
This is what has many tongues on both sides wagging:
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
On the face of it, I admit, it sounds really strange from a man that was very seriously considering entering the Roman Catholic priesthood.
But, here is the full context:
How much of your pro-life stance, for you, is informed not just by your Catholic faith but by the fact that you were adopted?
Oh, a lot. Absolutely. I see the power of life in that—I mean, and the power of choice! The thing to keep in mind about it… Uh, you know, I think as a country we get off on these misguided conversations that throw around terms that really misrepresent truth.
Explain that.
Explain that.
The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
You do?
You do?
Yeah. Absolutely.
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
Are you saying you don’t want to overturn Roe v. Wade?
I think Roe v. Wade—as a legal matter, Roe v. Wade was a wrongly decided matter
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
Okay, but if you overturn Roe v. Wade, how do women have the choice you just said they should have?
The states should make that choice. That’s what the choice is. The individual choice rests in the states. Let them decide.
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Absolutely!
Really, what Mr. Steele was articulating was standard conservative, Republican thinking on abortion. That Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided. That the states should make the laws governing abortion, not the federal government with an assist by the supreme court.
In fact, that was Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's point on the abortion issue during the Death March of a 2008 presidential campaign.
In context, Mr. Steele was speaking on the abortion issue the way that a seminarian would. That there is a choice. There is a right choice and a wrong choice. Where Mr. Steele got into trouble was that he seemingly took what can only be a pro-choice position when asked about a woman's "right" to choose. But, I read it as the way a priest, pastor or minister would answer that question.
The fact is that we all have choices that we make. Some bad, some good. I believe that abortion, by and large, is wrong. Are there cases for it? Yes. Does a woman make a choice whether or not to have an abortion? Of course. But, so does an alcoholic who knows that he or she should not take a drink. A drug addict. Any addict. One can choose to steal, to rob. It is a choice.
Where I would point out that Mr. Steele needs to think very, very carefully in talking with the DDBMSOWM is that they have an agenda. They want to embarrass any conservative Republican. And they want to talk about so-called social issues. As they say, read the whole interview. There is scant little about what President Obama has done in the beginning of the rape of the American taxpayer.
I think that Mr. Steele realizes that he is talking to what I would characterize as a "Blue" audience. Lets face it. GQ does not really attract a lot of conservative Republican readers. I think that Mr. Steele was trying to answer in a way to appeal to a more moderate reader of GQ. One who may think that they are a liberal or Democrat, but may listen to someone like a Michael Steele. That is the appeal of Mr. Steele. But, he has to be very careful to realize in the internet age, a lot of people read these interviews. Thus, it seems to look bad on the surface. But, again, I would ask to read it all in context.
John Hawkins of Right Wing News is spot on. The right needs to lay off Mr. Steele. Mr. Hawkins' point is one I agree with. Mr. Steele is new. He is not an old Washington hand. He will make mistakes. But, he is getting the conservative message out there.
A lot of the criticism against Mr. Steele is inside baseball stuff. About staffing at the RNC. How the special election on March 31 in the New York congressional special election is make or break. One special election? Please.
Again, I ask that if you have doubts about Mr. Steele, read the whole interview. Take his abortion comments not as endorsement of being "pro-choice" but articulating that choices are made. Some bad, some good.
And as far as the thrust of what Mr. Steele was saying, that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided, is spot on. That it should be left to the states to determine abortion law.
On that, Michael Steele is right and it should be how we take the political abortion battle from here on.
David Frum, STFU!
OK, I guess that alleged conservative Republican guru David Frum does not read this blog.
In an earlier posting, I politely suggested that Mr. Frum shut his hole in his one-man Jihad against radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
But, alas, Mr. Frum could not stop himself in doing that and continues the Jihad against the "face" of the Republican party and brings shame to himself and all that he claimed to believe over the years.
It was not enough that Mr. Frum spent so much face time on the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media taking his case that a radio talk show host has somehow hijacked the Republican party. No, no, no.
In this past week's Newsweek, Mr. Frum's Rush Jihad is given front page prominence. And Mr. Frum was yucking it up on "Whiffleball" aka "Hardball" with Chris Thrill Up My Leg Matthews.
Yes, these are areas in which to make a case that Rush Limbaugh should not be a leader-not the leader-in the conservative/Republican movement. Mr. Frum takes a real great liberty of comparing Mr. Limbaugh to Jesse Jackson. Mr. Jackson at least ran for president. Mr. Limbaugh has no inclination of entering elected politics. It is a long-winded piece and while I can actually find a bit of agreement with some of Mr. Frum's points, the problem is that he falls into the left-wing trap by making the issue Rush Limbaugh. What it is is something that falls into the
saying principles before personalities. Mr. Frum is letting Mr. Limbaugh's personality affect how he makes his case to expand conservative/Republicans.
Mr. Frum has a new website he calls the New Majority and claims that it is a "Republicanism that works". Now, I link to it and read it often. Unfortunately, it does not articulate a very conservative message at all. It longs for the days of a Richard Nixon style Republican party. One that essentially put in the liberal-left programs during the 1970s. It did not grow the party whatsoever. And will not now.
Also, Mr. Frum's latest book is 'Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again' and it really is a watered-down liberal-left agenda. In the American Spectator is an excellent piece by Daniel J. Flynn that deconstructs a lot of the Frum argument and the one-man Jihad against Mr. Limbaugh.
Again, I ask Mr. Frum that he take his case about how conservatism should "evolve" on the merits. There is no need to attack Rush Limbaugh. Or social conservatives. Or those of us that believe that while some of the issues have changed, conservative ideas have not.
I am now telling Mr. Frum to shut the f--- up. If he can not stop bashing those that are allies, then Mr. Frum has to shut the f--- up and now!
In an earlier posting, I politely suggested that Mr. Frum shut his hole in his one-man Jihad against radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.
But, alas, Mr. Frum could not stop himself in doing that and continues the Jihad against the "face" of the Republican party and brings shame to himself and all that he claimed to believe over the years.
It was not enough that Mr. Frum spent so much face time on the Dinosaur, Drive-By, Mainstream, Obama-Worshiping Media taking his case that a radio talk show host has somehow hijacked the Republican party. No, no, no.
In this past week's Newsweek, Mr. Frum's Rush Jihad is given front page prominence. And Mr. Frum was yucking it up on "Whiffleball" aka "Hardball" with Chris Thrill Up My Leg Matthews.
Yes, these are areas in which to make a case that Rush Limbaugh should not be a leader-not the leader-in the conservative/Republican movement. Mr. Frum takes a real great liberty of comparing Mr. Limbaugh to Jesse Jackson. Mr. Jackson at least ran for president. Mr. Limbaugh has no inclination of entering elected politics. It is a long-winded piece and while I can actually find a bit of agreement with some of Mr. Frum's points, the problem is that he falls into the left-wing trap by making the issue Rush Limbaugh. What it is is something that falls into the
saying principles before personalities. Mr. Frum is letting Mr. Limbaugh's personality affect how he makes his case to expand conservative/Republicans.
Mr. Frum has a new website he calls the New Majority and claims that it is a "Republicanism that works". Now, I link to it and read it often. Unfortunately, it does not articulate a very conservative message at all. It longs for the days of a Richard Nixon style Republican party. One that essentially put in the liberal-left programs during the 1970s. It did not grow the party whatsoever. And will not now.
Also, Mr. Frum's latest book is 'Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again' and it really is a watered-down liberal-left agenda. In the American Spectator is an excellent piece by Daniel J. Flynn that deconstructs a lot of the Frum argument and the one-man Jihad against Mr. Limbaugh.
Again, I ask Mr. Frum that he take his case about how conservatism should "evolve" on the merits. There is no need to attack Rush Limbaugh. Or social conservatives. Or those of us that believe that while some of the issues have changed, conservative ideas have not.
I am now telling Mr. Frum to shut the f--- up. If he can not stop bashing those that are allies, then Mr. Frum has to shut the f--- up and now!
Ross Douthat To Be New Token Conservative At The New York Times
UPDATED:
The announcement of Mr. Douthat's hiring says it all about what constitutes a "conservative" in the world of The New York Times.
According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Atlantic's Ross Douthat will be the new token conservative (David Brooks DOES NOT count!) on The New York Times op-ed page.
Mr. Douthat is young, smart and kind of conservative. Some where between David I Hate Rush Frum and mainstream conservative Republicans like Mitt Romney or Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
Mr. Douthat has been a contributor to National Review and usually writes movie reviews for the venerable conservative magazine.
However, like everything else at The New York Times, this comes too little too late. And there is no guarantee that once David Brooks sinks his smarmy, moderate teeth in his neck that he will not end up another, well David Brooks. Or worse, David I Hate Rush Frum!
And if you read the link, the Times is not letting Mr. Douthat dive right in. The Times is starting Mr. Douthat online and let him gradually in the dead tree editions. You know, kind letting the libertards acquire the Douthat taste.
My question is will there BE a dead tree edition of The New York Times for Mr. Douthat to go to eventually?
Well, at least the Times did not ask David I Hate Rush Frum. So, that is a step in the right direction.
The announcement of Mr. Douthat's hiring says it all about what constitutes a "conservative" in the world of The New York Times.
According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the Atlantic's Ross Douthat will be the new token conservative (David Brooks DOES NOT count!) on The New York Times op-ed page.
Mr. Douthat is young, smart and kind of conservative. Some where between David I Hate Rush Frum and mainstream conservative Republicans like Mitt Romney or Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.
Mr. Douthat has been a contributor to National Review and usually writes movie reviews for the venerable conservative magazine.
However, like everything else at The New York Times, this comes too little too late. And there is no guarantee that once David Brooks sinks his smarmy, moderate teeth in his neck that he will not end up another, well David Brooks. Or worse, David I Hate Rush Frum!
And if you read the link, the Times is not letting Mr. Douthat dive right in. The Times is starting Mr. Douthat online and let him gradually in the dead tree editions. You know, kind letting the libertards acquire the Douthat taste.
My question is will there BE a dead tree edition of The New York Times for Mr. Douthat to go to eventually?
Well, at least the Times did not ask David I Hate Rush Frum. So, that is a step in the right direction.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Connecticut Dems And The Catholic Church
In a not-so-subtle attempt to try to take the power of the Roman Catholic church to organize as it is sees fit, two Connecticut Democrat state legislators were putting a bill up that would have essentially had the state determine how each parish would organize its governing boards.
Now, it is known to regular readers of this blog that I am not a Christian Roman Catholic. I am a Christian and an Episcopalian. But in this case, I am defiantly with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.
At issue is the way that each Roman Catholic diocese is set up and how each individual parish governing board is set up.
Currently, as I understand it, the diocesan bishop and the local parish priest or rector essentially run each parish with little if any input from the laity. I assume that there is some kind of governing board, so to any Roman Catholic readers, let me know.
In the Episcopal church, there is a diocesan bishop and each parish. The governing board is known as a vestry. Ostensibly, the members of the vestry are selected by committee and put up for a vote of parish members at a set time and place, usually an annual meeting of the parish.
So, some Roman Catholics do not like the fact that they give money to the church and do not like how the money is spent. Or on any given issue that a particular parish priest or rector deems it necessary for.
So, a Connecticut church member, Tom Gallagher, went to a state senator by the name of Andrew Macdonald (D-Stamford) to pursue state legislation that would create vestry-like lay boards of seven to 13 members. And that board would oversee the church finances. The kicker is that it would put the local priest or rector and bishop is nothing more than an advisory role.
Besides the fact that this would be blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion, there is an underlying theme that somehow there is not so veiled anti-Roman Catholicism on the part of some state legislators.
As it turns out, Sen. Macdonald and his bill co-sponsor, state Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) are gay. And they were none too happy about the role that many Roman Catholics played in supporting Proposition 8 this past November. Supposedly, the concerned lay person who approached Sen. Macdonald, Mr. Gallagher, is a leader of reform-minded Roman Catholics in Connecticut called Catholics for Better Governance.
Now, I do not really care how the Roman Catholic church chooses to govern itself. It is their right. Just as it is the right for the Episcopal Church or any other religious entity to govern itself as it see fit.
There can not be a role of government in the process. And the fact that two state legislators in Connecticut almost got as far as it did is disturbing.
But, a lot of pressure came to bear and Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Macdonald have shelved the proposed bill-for now.
But, why would two actively gay, Democrat, state legislators try to force a church to change the way that it governs? Unless they thought that it would get lay people, who may be more sympathetic to their issues, or boards they would have created. Thus they may not have been inclined to support such a measure as Proposition 8. Or anti-life legislation.
The only reason this was even known is because of such people as the folks at National Review and radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, a practicing Roman Catholic.
Good for them!
This proves that the Democrats are all talk about religious freedom. Until they freely exercise their religious understandings against issues that they are for.
Now, it is known to regular readers of this blog that I am not a Christian Roman Catholic. I am a Christian and an Episcopalian. But in this case, I am defiantly with my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters.
At issue is the way that each Roman Catholic diocese is set up and how each individual parish governing board is set up.
Currently, as I understand it, the diocesan bishop and the local parish priest or rector essentially run each parish with little if any input from the laity. I assume that there is some kind of governing board, so to any Roman Catholic readers, let me know.
In the Episcopal church, there is a diocesan bishop and each parish. The governing board is known as a vestry. Ostensibly, the members of the vestry are selected by committee and put up for a vote of parish members at a set time and place, usually an annual meeting of the parish.
So, some Roman Catholics do not like the fact that they give money to the church and do not like how the money is spent. Or on any given issue that a particular parish priest or rector deems it necessary for.
So, a Connecticut church member, Tom Gallagher, went to a state senator by the name of Andrew Macdonald (D-Stamford) to pursue state legislation that would create vestry-like lay boards of seven to 13 members. And that board would oversee the church finances. The kicker is that it would put the local priest or rector and bishop is nothing more than an advisory role.
Besides the fact that this would be blatantly unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the free exercise of religion, there is an underlying theme that somehow there is not so veiled anti-Roman Catholicism on the part of some state legislators.
As it turns out, Sen. Macdonald and his bill co-sponsor, state Rep. Michael Lawlor (D-East Haven) are gay. And they were none too happy about the role that many Roman Catholics played in supporting Proposition 8 this past November. Supposedly, the concerned lay person who approached Sen. Macdonald, Mr. Gallagher, is a leader of reform-minded Roman Catholics in Connecticut called Catholics for Better Governance.
Now, I do not really care how the Roman Catholic church chooses to govern itself. It is their right. Just as it is the right for the Episcopal Church or any other religious entity to govern itself as it see fit.
There can not be a role of government in the process. And the fact that two state legislators in Connecticut almost got as far as it did is disturbing.
But, a lot of pressure came to bear and Rep. Lawlor and Sen. Macdonald have shelved the proposed bill-for now.
But, why would two actively gay, Democrat, state legislators try to force a church to change the way that it governs? Unless they thought that it would get lay people, who may be more sympathetic to their issues, or boards they would have created. Thus they may not have been inclined to support such a measure as Proposition 8. Or anti-life legislation.
The only reason this was even known is because of such people as the folks at National Review and radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, a practicing Roman Catholic.
Good for them!
This proves that the Democrats are all talk about religious freedom. Until they freely exercise their religious understandings against issues that they are for.
Monday, March 09, 2009
Great News! The 10 American Newspapers That May Stop Killing Trees By The End Of This Year!
Just so you do not think it is a right-wing it job, the following analysis is from Time magazine. And it is not good for 10 newspapers around the United States.
The list of newspapers is as follows:
1) The Boston Globe
2) Chicago Sun-Times
3) The Plain-Dealer (Cleveland)
4) The Detroit News
5) Fort Worth Star-Telegram
6) The Miami Herald
7) Minneapolis Star-Tribune
8) New York Daily News
9) Philadelphia Daily News
10) San Francisco Chronicle
Now, some of these newspapers will not die entirely. In fact, there is a good possibility that many will become online only newspapers. According to the article, that is exactly what is possible for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as well as The Boston Globe, The Plain-Dealer, The Miami Herald, Minneapolis Star-Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle.
Here is some irony for the San Francisco Chronicle. They will be forced to possibly become an online only newspaper and yet the San Francisco Examiner, a free daily, will go on to survive with both a strong online presence and an actual newspaper that people can pick up for free anywhere in the Bay area. The Hearst corporation did a swap, selling the one time flagship Examiner to a local family and bought the Chronicle from the De Young family. And now, they will be left essentially with nothing. Ironic, isn't it?!
Another interesting aspect is where these newspapers are located. Nine of the 10 newspapers are in large cities in so-called Blue States. Only one, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is in a Red State.
Why is that?
Well, there is a case and to some extent legitimate, that advertising revenue is way down. And now there is a full-fledged economic slowdown which is not helping the situation.
But, there has to be an argument that I have been making and will continue to make.
These newspapers are predictably liberal, by and large. The staff and editors almost by and large have allowed their biases to permeate in the news sections. As well as the sports sections. And the way that they cover the culture, well, there is no doubt where these newspapers stand.
Many think I look at this with glee.
But I do not. It is moronic for these publications to have not gotten on and figured out the digital age. Keeping over paid columnists and not realizing how to charge for the online product is another culprit. Another aspect is that many of these large newspapers are over paying blowhard columnists at the expense of actual reporters. Here is the take from The Other McCain, an actual newspaperman himself:
The privileged positions within the newspaper industry enjoyed by op-ed columnists like David Brooks have been rendered obsolete by the rise of the blogosphere. Were there any justice in the world, the New York Times would have axed overpaid opinionators like Brooks and Maureen Dowd rather than eviscerating its news-reporting operation.Good to see that finally someone in the newspaper business gets it.
By the way, it is in response to The Washington Times hiring Richard Mintier as the editorial page editor. I should note that The Washington Times is not going anywhere anytime soon. Nor apparently is the Boston Herald.
Maybe seeing some newspapers go from the dead tree edition to the online edition is the only way to see if there is room for the newspaper industry to survive in this electronic age. But it also appears that they will have to be taken in dragging and screaming.
The list of newspapers is as follows:
1) The Boston Globe
2) Chicago Sun-Times
3) The Plain-Dealer (Cleveland)
4) The Detroit News
5) Fort Worth Star-Telegram
6) The Miami Herald
7) Minneapolis Star-Tribune
8) New York Daily News
9) Philadelphia Daily News
10) San Francisco Chronicle
Now, some of these newspapers will not die entirely. In fact, there is a good possibility that many will become online only newspapers. According to the article, that is exactly what is possible for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as well as The Boston Globe, The Plain-Dealer, The Miami Herald, Minneapolis Star-Tribune and San Francisco Chronicle.
Here is some irony for the San Francisco Chronicle. They will be forced to possibly become an online only newspaper and yet the San Francisco Examiner, a free daily, will go on to survive with both a strong online presence and an actual newspaper that people can pick up for free anywhere in the Bay area. The Hearst corporation did a swap, selling the one time flagship Examiner to a local family and bought the Chronicle from the De Young family. And now, they will be left essentially with nothing. Ironic, isn't it?!
Another interesting aspect is where these newspapers are located. Nine of the 10 newspapers are in large cities in so-called Blue States. Only one, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram is in a Red State.
Why is that?
Well, there is a case and to some extent legitimate, that advertising revenue is way down. And now there is a full-fledged economic slowdown which is not helping the situation.
But, there has to be an argument that I have been making and will continue to make.
These newspapers are predictably liberal, by and large. The staff and editors almost by and large have allowed their biases to permeate in the news sections. As well as the sports sections. And the way that they cover the culture, well, there is no doubt where these newspapers stand.
Many think I look at this with glee.
But I do not. It is moronic for these publications to have not gotten on and figured out the digital age. Keeping over paid columnists and not realizing how to charge for the online product is another culprit. Another aspect is that many of these large newspapers are over paying blowhard columnists at the expense of actual reporters. Here is the take from The Other McCain, an actual newspaperman himself:
The privileged positions within the newspaper industry enjoyed by op-ed columnists like David Brooks have been rendered obsolete by the rise of the blogosphere. Were there any justice in the world, the New York Times would have axed overpaid opinionators like Brooks and Maureen Dowd rather than eviscerating its news-reporting operation.Good to see that finally someone in the newspaper business gets it.
By the way, it is in response to The Washington Times hiring Richard Mintier as the editorial page editor. I should note that The Washington Times is not going anywhere anytime soon. Nor apparently is the Boston Herald.
Maybe seeing some newspapers go from the dead tree edition to the online edition is the only way to see if there is room for the newspaper industry to survive in this electronic age. But it also appears that they will have to be taken in dragging and screaming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)