Arizona Dems Goon Show

All I can say is that the Arizona Democrat party must be in dire straits. If they are reduced to having a very physically and possibly mentally impaired congressman run for a senate seat next year, it really is macabre time. This is in reference to the Arizona Democrat party attempting to recruit the injured congressman, Gabrielle Giffords, to run for the senate seat of the retiring Republican, Jon Kyl. According to this article in The New York Times, some members of Mrs. Giffords staff are laying the groundwork if she decides to make a run for the seat. As Mr. Campaign Spot, Jim Geraghty (a big Hat Tip to him for this!), the following is rather, oh I don't know. Creepy is one word: Representative Gabrielle Giffords is still in the hospital, but some of her most ardent backers are so enamored of the idea of her running for the Senate that they describe the inevitable campaign commercials: the deep-voiced narrator recounting what happened to her, the images of her wounded, then recovering and speaking into the camera alongside her astronaut husband to call on Arizonans to unite. WOW! Exploiting a tragedy for political gain? The fact that Mrs. Giffords was shot in the head by a deranged gunman? That six people died in this shooting? That many people were injured? Nah, not at all. Nothing to see there. Now really, is that the best Arizona Dems can come up with as a reason to vote for someone for senate? Because she survived an attempted murder. Vote for Giffords for senate! OK, I will play the game a bit. Mrs. Giffords has won her congressional seat three times. Three very tough races starting in 2006. Never getting more than 55% of the vote. In fact in the 2010 campaign, Mrs. Giffords barely won reelection against Jesse Kelly, 48.7% to 47.3%. So, how would that help statewide? Mrs. Giffords represents one of the few Democrat areas of the Grand Canyon State. And she squeaked by in the last election? How will she win statewide? By the sympathy vote, I guess. Can she win in Maricopa County, the largest in the state? The same county that keeps reelecting Sheriff Joe Arpaio? What about the Western part of the state? The growing Northwest part of the state? Again, very doubtful. But the whole push is exploitative. Something beyond creepy. Has anyone asked Mrs. Giffords about the possibility? Maybe not because she is nowhere near a recovery point to ask such a question. Yes, she will maybe see her husband, Mark Kelly, take off on the space shuttle this month. But that maybe too much for her. After all, she is recovering from a shooting in her head! This more than anything is what is wrong with politics. When humanity is taken out of the picture. And FTR, I would be writing the same thing if there was an R after Mrs. Giffords name. It is just wrong. Sometimes politics is not life. There are real people involved. It is too bad that there are some sociopathic types that do not realize it or care. I hope for a speedy recovery for Mrs. Giffords and to let her make any political decisions when she is ready. Not on some twisted campaign people's calendar.

The Left Angeles Times "Analysis" Of Cali Budget Talks Breakdown

WOW! The Left Angeles Times is putting editorials right smack dab on the front page. And it is the lead story above the fold. Wait, I'm sorry. My bad. It is a "News analysis" on the continuing "drift" of the California Republican party. The gist of this "analysis" is that us kooky right-wingers held the party hostage for not cutting a deal with the Democrat governor, Jerry Brown, and his allies to supposedly bridge the $26,000,000,000 deficit. The main thrust of the "deal" was for just enough Republicans to vote for authorizing a special election. That election would be to extend a slew of tax hikes for another five years. Those hikes, as noted in earlier posts, would continue a 1/2 cent hike in the state sales tax. And the increases in the Vehicle Registration Fee. Those are the most prominent in tax hikes that were negotiated during the reign of the former governor, Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger. At some point, these "temporary" tax hikes would be made permanent. I mean, after seven years, who would realize that these were tax hikes in the first place, right? So, lets take a little out of this editorial, er "analysis". Here is a paragraph that makes me L O L (laugh out loud): The Democratic governor and legislative leaders offered the GOP a rare chance to shape key policies — and mitigate several that were forged on the other side of the aisle over more than a decade. GOP legislation was suddenly on the front burner. Rolling back government employee pensions, easing regulations on business, limiting the growth of government all seemed within reach. Really, do these writers believe that this governor, Jerry Brown, would agree to roll back government employee pension? Please! Does anyone mention how much government employee union money was poured into the election effort of Gov. Brown? And that he would jump at a chance to sell them out? Again, please. Here is another nugget: The price for this potential bounty was four votes, the ones Gov. Jerry Brown needed to place a tax measure before voters. Not an endorsement of more taxes, just a vote to let voters decide the matter. Not an endorsement of more taxes?! Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot? Then why put this on the ballot in the first place? It is not to "let voters decide". It is the very elected officials effort to pass the buck. These people are more afraid of having to justify voting for higher taxes than some ode to democracy. And let me remind those waffling Republicans that the reward for endorsing higher taxes is for the Democrats to turn around and run against you. Because you voted for higher taxes. Even if in this case, it is just to let the voters decide on the issues. Just ask the great Political Whore, Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado. Oops! My bad, once again. That's former Lt. Gov. Abel Maldonado. See, he did just that under former Gov. Benedict Arnold. And he was rewarded with the Lt. Gov. position when it opened up. The current Lt. Gov, Democrat Gavin Newsom, used his vote for allowing a 2009 vote on the tax issue against him. Enough said. Of course the Times found a wallowing Republican to lament no deal. That would be former state Republican chairman, Duf Sundheim. Here is his wallow: The breakdown of negotiations "hurts everybody. … It doesn't help Republicans. It doesn't help Jerry Brown. It doesn't help Democrats. It's why people are so disgusted with the process." Wha! Wha! People are disgusted with politicians cutting deals to save their own hides. And Duf, was it not under your watch that the deal was cut 10 years ago to save Republicans in the legislature and congress? Instead of fighting legally for better lines to make elections better for all, you and your allies cut a deal. And of course the blame for the Republicans losing ground once again is us right wingers. You know, those of us that are looking out for the tax payers. Those of us that want limited government. Those of us that actually believe that when one runs against raising taxes and reneges that is not a good thing. You know, we were told that the state party will grow if we just moderate ourselves. Benedict Arnold was showing us the way. Yeah, right. Sure he was. The truth of the matter is that it was moderates that ran for governor and senate. And they lost handily. Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman thought that they could just say the right things and buy their way into their respective offices. And they both lost. Mrs. Whitman to the retread Mr. Brown. And Mrs. Fiorina to the repulsive Sen. Barbara Boxer. People rejected moderate Republicans when they can have a real deal Dem. Happens all the time. Oh, but here is the L O L and O M G from this analysis: If Republicans had forged a deal with Brown, it might have been the foundation of an enduring partnership. Now, the centrist governor who was open to some of the Republican agenda could be pulled to the left. Centrist governor?! Once again, Whiskey? Tango? Foxtrot? This is the man, Jerry Brown, that began the ball rolling to financial doom by allowing state employees to organize under the Dills Act of 1978. And while it seemed rather innocuous and even benevolent back then, it is a huge reason why the politicians will not deal with the problem of the government-labor union relationship. Now, there is one bit of truth in this editorial, er "analysis". That the state Republican party does have a weak bench in terms of people who can run for offices like the governor's office and or the senate and other statewide offices. That will be the herculean task of the new state Republican chair, Tom Del Beccaro. He will have to identify good candidates. He will have to groom the same candidates. And the next election for governor is not until 2014. Before that will be a presidential election and the expected reelection bid of Sen. Dianne Feinstein. It will be a big task, but I think Mr. Del Beccaro is up for the task. It will not be because of the Axis of Evil. The Left Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronic, er Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee. These are the newspapers of big government. And they are going to try their best under the guise of analysis to demonize the California Republican party.

Governor Brown Ends Cali Budget Talks With Republicans-GOOD!

Here is the story that California Democrat governor, Jerry Brown, is ending talks to get at least four Republicans to vote for a tax extension measure for a June special election. And it is about time. Why Gov. Brown is playing a game of chicken is beyond me. Gov. Brown can let these taxes lapse and propose new ones. New ones that the legislature-you know the elected representatives of the people-vote on. But that is the scam. Because of the ridiculous campaign promise that he would not raise taxes without letting the people vote on it, Gov. Brown boxed himself in a corner. Surprisingly, the Republicans in the legislature have stood together enough to stop this from getting to a vote. What Gov. Brown is trying to do, along with the Democrats is say that they will not raise taxes, but that if the people vote on it, they will pass the taxes. That way, the Dems can say see, the people want to keep their tax hikes for another five years. Of course the possibility that the people may not vote for the measure seems to have not crossed the minds of the Democrats. Now, Gov. Brown is using the old draconian budget cuts trick to scare people. The problem is that the people realize that the size and scope of California government is too big. We are willing to make sacrifices for the good of the state. As John Fleischman puts in in this column, no budget deal is better than a bad budget deal. In fact, I want to highlight the last paragraph of Mr. Fleischman's column: If you are a liberal Democrat, I have some good news for you – a “silver lining” in what is a very dark rain cloud. Thanks to your campaign to pass Proposition 25, you don’t need the votes of a single Republican to pass a budget - you get to do this on a majority vote. In times of plenty, this means you get to make all of the choices of where to spend an influx of taxpayer dollars. But it also means that in tough economic times, like now, you get to make all of the choices as to what programs and functions of state government get cut. I highlight the last part because at the end of the day, this is the fundamental problem. The state is broke, thanks to Democrats and some Republicans, and the same people are afraid to make tough choices because they know they will face the potential wrath of the voters. Tough duck! It is not all candy and rainbows. The reality is that government budgets depend entirely on the economy. A bad economy, where there is high unemployment, little private sector growth, lower tax revenue and budgets need to be trimmed. Happens all the time. In good times, the politicians propose and fund programs without thinking. Gee, maybe we won't be able to keep this program if the economy starts to go downward. Gov. Brown and the Democrats need to get real. They have all the power and are squandering it hoping that they will not have to vote on tax hikes. The Republicans do not need to help the Dems out of the hole of their choosing.

The Dear Leader Provides No Clarity On The Libyan Knietic Operation

Last night, the Dear Leader, President Obama, attempted to clarify why the armed forces of the United States is leading the operations in Libya. And kind of like the baseball hitter in the bottom of the ninth inning with the bases loaded and a full count, he whiffed and struck out. Now the Dear Leader, President Obama, did not use the phrase "kinetic military action" that was bandied about last week as the Libyan operation began. But really, does anyone really know what the goal is of the mission? Why is it that we, as the last remaining superpower get to start it, but then "hand it over" to NATO? And two perpetual other questions. Are we trying to oust the Brother Leader Moammar Qaddafi? And what do we really know about the rebels trying to oust the Brother Leader Qaddafi? Lets start at the last question. We know very little. In fact, one of the claims of the Brother Leader Qaddafi is that the rebels are led by al-Queda forces. Well, the Brother Leader may not be totally wrong. According to Adm. James Stavridis, a NATO commander, there may be "flickers" of al-Queda alongside the rebels. Great news! The Brother Leader's rant is being confirmed. And to me, a "flicker" is just too many. One al-Queda fighter is one too many. It goes back to my question as to whether the United States has any influence over these rebels. The fact is that we have no clue as to who they really are. And thus it will be very difficult to know what kind of relationship we will have with these people should they be successful in bringing down the Brother Leader. And on that score, in the speech transcript, there is nothing that spells out explicitly that to end the operation, the Brother Leader must go. In exile. To the International Court in The Hague. In a box. Nothing concrete. Some want to say that the Dear Leader, President Obama, was "nuanced" on this. Hmm, I do not want nuance here. Either the end game is the Brother Leader is gone or this is a waste of time, money, manpower and potentially American lives. In the speech, the Dear Leader, President Obama, tries to make a case that this operation was undertaken to prevent a potential massacre if the Brother Leader's forces had entered the city of Benghazi. No doubt that a fierce fight would occur. And a lot of innocent people would have been killed. But, why the wait? There was a lot of violence leading up to the Brother Leader's forces on the gates of Benghazi. So, again, the Dear Leader, President Obama, did not spell out the end game of the mission. He really danced around what we are doing in any kind of leadership role now that NATO, essentially a United States led military alliance, is taking over the mission. And the question of the day is this. What is the mission? That is no more clearer today than it was before the speech of last night.

Why Governor Brown Should Just Push A Tax Hike

The game of chicken that is being played in Sacramento is really annoying. The game is who will blink on the attempt by Democrat governor Jerry Brown to force four Republicans to vote on extending an array of tax hikes. The tax hikes were part of a budget "deal" two years ago between then governor Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Democrat-dominated state legislature. They include and not limited to a 1/2 cent hike in the state sales tax and increase in the Vehicle Registration Fee. As part of a scam, the issue was put to the voters in a special election in 2009. Not surprisingly, the voters rejected the attempt to have this "temporary" tax hike extended for five years. Thus, the "temporary" tax hikes only are until this June. And they will expire. But, Gov. Brown made a crazy campaign promise. That he would not raise taxes unless the issue was put to the voters. I guess Gov. Brown thought, hey, no one is against putting the issue to the voters, right? Well, the funny thing is that Californians are not ready to keep their "temporary" tax hike for another five years. And Gov. Brown is blaming surprisingly united legislative Republicans for not letting the people decide. And the further the chances that the legislature will vote to have a special election in June, and people realize what is at stake, they are leaning against voting to keep the "temporary" taxes for another five years. So, my thought is that Gov. Brown should just go to the legislature and demand whatever tax hikes he wants to close the $26,000,000,000 deficit. Why does he need voters to vote on it? He can just take a look at everything and determine that what he wants in taking the issue to the voters is not enough. That even more taxes need to be raised. Again, this is a game of chicken. Gov. Brown does not want to be the one to blink. He does not want to be the one to propose an even more onerous, and more than likely permanent series of tax hikes. Yet, I think that he will have no choice. I do not think that he has the stomach to cut the bloated state budget the way that it needs to be. After all, the state labor unions that fought to get him in office did not do so to have him cut their jobs and benefits. So, just say that to the people, Gov. Brown. If you believe that more cuts would be damaging, just tell the people that what he wanted to do will not work. That he needs to create new "revenue streams" so that he does not have to make the kind of cuts that are, in reality, needed. Until then, expect the game of chicken to continue. And the people will be less inclined to vote for extending "temporary" tax hikes. Oh what a tangled web Gov. Brown spun for himself!

What Are We Doing In Libya?

I know that I have been out of commission with my medical malady, but I really do not understand this effort of the United States air force in Libya.
What is it we are doing?
Apparently, we are trying to protect civilians caught in the crossfire between rebels and the forces loyal to the dictator Moammar Qaddafi.
Oh no.
It is to see dictator Qaddafi ousted. But not necessarily by this effort.
Wait, we do not even know anything about these rebels. We maybe backing forces worse, if you can believe that, than the dictator Qaddafi.
And are we leading the effort to do whatever it is we are doing?
Even that is in dispute. We keep hearing that indeed we are not and will hand off to other forces to continue whatever it is we are doing in Libya.
Oh, and if it is a long-term military engagement, should have not the commander-in-chief, the Dear Leader, President Obama, notified congress of this what ever it is we are doing?
Lets start from there.
I do believe that the Dear Leader, President Obama, needed to ask congress for the approval to use the air power we are using over Libya. After all, a fighter had a malfunction and crashed. And while the two-member crew escaped injury, what would have happened if they died? Or were captured by the dictator Qaddafi's mercenary forces?
While there have been two short-term rescue missions that come to mind in which presidents did not go to congress, overall it is important to give the enemy a sense that the nation and its elected officials are united and on the same page.
For the record, the two incidents are in the Mayaguez incident at the end of American military involvement in Southeast Asia.
The second was the Debacle In The Desert when then President Jimmah Carter authorized the use of military force to attempt to release the United States embassy hostages.
But this appears to be a much longer term mission and congress needs to be kept abreast and given the ability to show support for the commander-in-chief.
Again, what is it we are doing in Libya?
May be that is why the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not going to congress. Because he does not know what he is doing.
In fact, it appears that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is more worried about following to the letter the United Nation's resolution regarding a no-fly zone over Libya. And to be honest, it is as confusing and contradictory as the Dear Leader, President Obama's stated objectives.
And what about these rebels? Do we know anything about this force? Are they united in getting rid of the dictator Qaddafi only and will fight among themselves once that is done? Is there any truth that al-Queda is backing the rebels?
I for one do not know. And I suspect, neither does the United States and or its allies. Well, shouldn't we know something about those that want to oust the dictator Qaddafi? I know I do.
I really think that we dropped the ball, what a surprise, on this.
We should have been more aware of the opposition and made nice-nice with them. We should have been able to mold them to at the very least not be anti-American. And pro-Western. But, I do not see any evidence of this happening. If so, maybe our mission would be more defined.
Clarity is missing from this mission. It makes the 2,000 so called health-care "reform" look entirely understandable.
If the commander-in-chief, the Dear Leader, President Obama, can not articulate and leader in this effort, then we will have a lot of problems not only in carrying out this effort, but the American people will not support this for a long-term.
Which goes back to the original thought.
What are we doing in Libya?

Medical Maladies And Trying To Be Patient

These days have been quite lousy for your humble blogger. As I wrote recently on my Facebook page, I feel like I have minor-league medical maladies.
However, my latest is not a good one.
Last week, I discovered that I have a case of thrombophlebitis. As Archie Bunker once said "Isn't that what the Democrats gave Nixon?"
Well, not exactly.
Just to remind the youngsters, when Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in 1974, not too long after he was diagnosed with phlebitis. Something not many people knew about. It was rather serious as Mr. Nixon had the worse of the two kinds. He had the Deep Vein Thrombosis.
Essentially, these are blood clots.
What I have is what is called a surface clot. And it is the least serious of the two. Not that there is not the possibility of the clot breaking and travelling through to the heart and causing a heart attack and or death.
But, I am not the best of patients.
I wished that this was over and done with yesterday.
But, following doc's orders, I am elevating my right leg as much as possible and putting a hot pack three times a day. And I am on coumadin, a blood thinner.
Not even my blood is thin!
But seriously, this is important for those reading this.
Do not mess around. If you believe that you have a problem like this, see your doctor yesterday. If you can not see your regular doctor, go to an urgent care or emergency room. The faster it is diagnosed, the faster that one can take care of the condition and recover.
And follow what the doc tells you to do. It can and will save your life.

Another Federal Government Over Reach

As if our federal government does not interfere enough with matters best left to the states, here is another proposal for the feds, not the states, to determine when young people will get a driver's license.
Of course it is all about saving lives, doncha know?
That is the claim of congressman Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and the bill's sponsor, Tim Bishop (D-NY).
Yes young people are not necessarily the best drivers. But living here in the Los Angeles metropolitan area, it is not just young people that are lousy drivers. And this is not to stereotype any one. It is not the point.
What business is it of the federal government what age each state allows people to begin the process of getting a driver's license?
Ahh, there is that issue of getting money from the federal government for highway maintenance.
Nice bit of blackmail, isn't it?
If this moronic legislation were to pass, each of the 50 states would have to get their guidelines in line with what the feds believe is correct. If not, they will lose 10% of their federal highway funds.
See, it is not all about saving lives. It is about how to get the cash from D. C.. Oh yeah, we will give you the cash for highways, but here is the blackmail for you to get it.
This has been done so much by the federal government that I could cite until my hands fall off typing the cases.
This is not necessary. Many states are doing a fine job in determining how to start the process of young people getting a driver's license. And it is what fits each state based on such things as accidents, driving habits and or trends among these young people.
It easy to blame youth for such things. However, has anyone realized that new drivers, by and large, are more likely to be good drivers? They are much more aware of the rules of the road than many older people. I think that in reality it would be safe to say that college-age drivers are more likely to be a threat on the road than high-school age drivers.
In the linked story, sociologist Mike Males, makes the point. Making people wait to drive does not mean less problems. It means delaying an inevitability. Mr. Males:

"It turns out that its worse to have inexperienced 18-year-olds on the road than inexperienced 16-year-olds."

And you know what Mr. Males suggests? Going after bad drivers. They come in all ages.
Because it would make sense.
So, for the other side there is bill supporter Ray Sanderbeck.
Sadly, his daughter, Michelle, was a passenger in a car driven by a friend, both at the time 15 years old. The car went out of control and Michelle died.
In support of the legislation, Mr Sanderbeck said this:

He says if this kind of law would have been in effect in 2006, his daughter would still be here.
"If they can nationalize this across the United States, I know it will save teen lives."

Now I know Mr. Sanderbeck is emotional, but he can not say his daughter would still be alive if she was not in the car with her friend. It is possible that she may have been hit by a car. That Mr. Sanderbeck could have been driving a car that got out of his control and she died. See, that is an overarching emotional argument. But it is not good enough to take away the state's ability to determine the correct way to start the process of giving driver's licenses.
The more that we allow these kind of proposed legislation to become law, the less ability there is for the states to determine legitimately the way to deal with such matters as who does and does not drive on the streets and highways.
The best way to save lives, young, old and all in between, is to go after bad drivers. Period. And let the local governments figure out how best to deal with it, not the feds. And certainly not by using the blackmail of not getting federal highway funds.

OMG! The Radiation Is Here And We Are All Glowing!*

Let the panic begin for the West Coast of the United States! The radioactive cloud from the crippled Japanese nuclear reactor has reached the continental United States. Yes, we are glowing like a bunch of incandescent light bulbs!
NOT!
But hey, why not panic about it, right?
I mean, that has been the thrust of the coverage from the disaster zone in the Japanese earthquake and tsunami. That a meltdown is inevitable and Chernobyl will look good compared to what will occur at the very damaged Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant.
Yes, it is a very serious and troubling situation. And it very well could end up being a worst case scenario. But why is the leftywhore media hyping this story?
Today on Good Morning America, there was a stellar report on three nuclear power plants in the United States.
The first was on Indian Point in New York state. Well, it is on an earthquake fault. And yet it was still built.
The second was one in Illinois, near Joliet. Not near a fault line. But if disaster occurred, over 150,000 people would have to be evacuated in the immediate area.
And of course is San Onofre hear in So Cal. Why it is on a beach. And next to a freeway. And yet, yet it is still standing.
You see, the more that this is made to be worst case scenario, the anti-nuke crowd will stir fear in the hearts and minds of people and turn them against nuclear power.
Why, it just is not safe. Look what happened in Japan?
Yes, let us look at the situation in Japan.
A 9.1 earthquake hit offshore last Friday. Because of the earthquake, a massive tsunami struck the area where the plant is located. The plant actually survived the earthquake. But could not survive the tsunami. It is a beyond a worst-case scenario.
Most nuke plants are built to survive roughly about a 7 point shaker on the Richter scale. Now, should any upgrades be made to online plants, if possible? Of course. But let us be realistic. Sometimes, no matter all that is done, there is a case like the chain reaction that occurred in Japan.
It should not be used to panic. Yet it is exactly being used for that purpose. And, it must stop.
Now, I have to see if anyone else is glowing as much as I am right now!

*No, we are NOT glowing like anything more than an average, sunny day in So Cal.

Americans Still Favor Nuke Power

In the wake of the massive Japanese earthquake, a residual aftermath is the possibility of a total meltdown at one Japan's nuclear power stations and a Chernobyl style disaster.
I do not want to diminish the possibility of a total meltdown and a wide swath of surrounding area being uninhabitable for generations. That is what happened in Chernobyl.
But before that possibility occurs, for it has not happened as of this post, I think that this poll is interesting.
Yes, I know that it is not scientific. Yes, I know it is on the Fox News Channel website. And yes, I voted in the majority. But look at the number of people that have voted. While 80+% out of over 70,000 maybe high, it takes an effort to actually spend a few seconds and clicks to state ones opinion.
I think that the majority of Americans want to take a wait-and-see attitude before succumbing to mindless "We can not do nuclear! The risks are too high!" mantra.
Me, I favor the all of the above and or smorgasbord approach. Everything should be explored and utilized to meet our energy needs. But realistically.
In other words, in the grand scheme of things, nuclear power has been safe. The fact is that there have been many accidents and destruction at conventional power plants over nuclear ones. The Chernobyl disaster was very unique because it happened in the then still very secretive Soviet Union. When it was a communist land. There was not the kind of 24/7 news cycle that may have prevented it from spiraling out of control as it did. And because of the cover-up, it became synonymous with those who believe that nuclear power is more of a danger than something good.
No question, a nuke plant must be very heavily regulated. And it should be. But again, look at the safety record for nuke plants vs. conventional power plants.
We need to continue and be serious about developing more, not less, nuclear power. And we can learn a lot from this experience in building new plants.
And most important we must keep all those trying to contain the damage at the Fukushima No.1 power plant in our prayers. They do need it.

Since When Is Holding Our Politicians Accountable A Bad Thing?

If you read this article in the Left Angeles Times, it is when Republican activists and allies tell the Republicans in the state legislature to just say no to new or extended taxes.
For the Left Angeles Times, this is not all in all a bad story. It highlights four people that are leading the battle to end the tax extension forced by the former governor, Benedict Arnold, squishy Republicans and the majority Democratic legislature.
The four are Jon Coupal of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayer Association, a leading tax opponent in California. And remind the youngsters reading this, Howard Jarvis, along with Paul Gann wrote the landmark Proposition 13 that rolled back crippling property taxes in California. And that was way back in 1978.
Next is Jon Fleischman, proprietor of the Flash Report, which this blog links to. He is a long time conservative Republican activist and has the ear of the rank-and-file voters within the party.
Then is the Los Angeles talk radio duo of John and Ken on KFI 640 radio. The afternoon drive team has been riding the anti-tax wave for many years now. Since Benedict Arnold became governor, one of their shticks-and I write it not to be offense-is putting those sellout Republicans for taxes Heads-On-A-Stick. It is a reminder as much as a warning to those that run as conservative Republicans, get to Sacramento and decide to get chummy with the power rather than work to keep taxes simple and low.
And that is the background in a nutshell.
So let us look at the article in the Times to see what is wrong with it.
First, this is a quote from the Senate president, Democrat Darrell Steinberg:

"There is nary a conversation about the budget that does not involve the names John and Ken," said Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento), the state Senate leader, who says the pair complicate his party's negotiations with Republicans.

Get it? If these damn fool John and Ken would just shut up, Sen. Darrell can get the two or more Republican votes he needs. And what does he need those votes for? To extend for five years the tax hikes that were only suppose to be for two years. Oh, and the best part? We the citizens get to vote for them. Never mind that in the last election, all four tax initiatives failed. Prop 1A failed which would have made these taxes longer term. See, Sen. Darrell wants just enough Republicans to walk the plank. And John and Ken, Mr. Fleischman and Mr. Coupal are saying no way.
Then there is this "analysis" from the writers, Anthony York and Shane Goldmacher:

The activists offer no alternative budget plan and say no policy concessions on Republican priorities — such as a state spending cap or a pension overhaul — are worth ceding ground on taxes. If they succeed in blocking the public vote on taxes that Brown's budget blueprint includes, the governor promises a spending plan containing deep service cuts that he says would have disastrous consequences for the state.

Hey guys, it is not their job to offer any alternative. Again, that is the job of the Republicans in the legislature. And really, there have been moves before to reign in spending. But it is like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown as he runs to kick it. The Republicans have a habit of being like Charlie Brown. And we, the voters and activists are tired of it.
The Flash Report is compared to the Drudge Report in the article. I think that may not be a compliment, but if I were Mr. Fleischman I sure would make it one. And later in the article, Mr. Fleischman is called "the resident Republican gossip". Ooohh! To paraphrase our illustrious Vice-President, Joe Biden, BFD.
Since the Republican legislators were still with their proverbial fingers in their rear-end, enter Jon Coupal to give them voice.
The article goes on to point out that Mr. Coupal promoted the idea of tax cuts along with the tax extensions. And the GOP got on board.
And Mr. Coupal had a very interesting observation:

"I would say that the Republicans are in no more fear of us than the Democrats are of the unions."

So, why do we elect these dolts in the first place if they can not come up with such a plan themselves? They are so worried about looking good rather than being adults and say the party is over and time to pay the bill. There is a real lack of leadership among elected Republicans in the state legislature. And that is why these four people have so much influence. Because the Republicans in Sacramento are beyond nervous Nellies.
The article goes on about the whinny for state assemblyman Anthony Adams, who signed a pledge not to raise taxes. But damn if he did not cave in. Because, you know, he is for "good government". If "good government" is to keep our heads in the sand about the long-term liability for state employee pensioners, then I do not want to be a part of it. If "good government" means no serious budget cuts and departmental reform, I do not want to be a part of it. If "good government" means voting for "temporary" tax hikes, I do not want to be a part of it.
The bottom line is that these individuals and their organizations and allies are doing the right thing. They are holding the people elected to what they ran on. Not raising taxes. Cutting the budget. Budgetary reform. These are very important to us in the Republican party in California.
But leave it to the Left Angeles Times to make that out to be a bad thing.

Spring Ahead

Folks, it is that time of year again. Yes, already. It is time for most of the United States to push their clocks ahead one hour and begin Daylight "Savings" Time.
So, before you go to bed tonight, make sure that the clocks in your abode are set one hour ahead. Because 2am will become 3am in the blink of an eye.
Keep this in mind "savings" time fanatics.
We have from the second Sunday in March to the second Sunday in November of "savings" time. But really, the optimum to actually make it actually work is to begin in April and end in September.
For instance, here in California where I live, the sun is up and bright a little after 6am. Tomorrow, that will be 7am. So once again it is a radical change in the morning hours. Again, wait until about mid-April and it would not be all that radical.
And that second Sunday in November, it goes the other way. The evening is the radical change. And it is proven that more auto accidents occur because of drivers not properly adjusted for evening driving at rush hour. Change it in September and you would not have these problems.
Kudos go to Arizona, Hawai'i, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands that do not buy into Daylight "Savings" Time at all.
Go ahead.
Have your fun tomorrow you Daylight "Savings" Time people. My time is coming in November!

Help The Victims Of The Massive Japanese Earthquake

Living here in California, better known as Earthquake Country, yesterday's 9.1 magnitude earthquake that hit Japan yesterday is a stark reminder of the power and fury of Mother Nature.
Although as of this posting, the government is stating the death toll at 686, there is no doubt that it will be very substantially higher. Hundred of thousands would be more like it. And if you take a look at this absolutely amazing video, that should tell you the depths of what happened.
What we need to remember is that there are many, many survivors. Many whose basic needs may not be met at this time.
That is where we come in.
There are many relief agencies that will do all they can to get basics to the people that will need it the most.
The following is but a short list for you to peruse and choose who you think will do the most good.

The Anglican Church of North America

The Episcopal Church

The Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod

The Roman Catholic Church (Catholic Charities)

The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The Salvation Army

American Red Cross

Islamic Red Crescent

Red Magen David Adom (Jewish)

World Vision

Of the religious groups, The Salvation Army has a long time standing in Japan. World Vision will also be a great resource. And this I always find interesting. That in time of disaster such as this, the religious relief groups get in and quickly and know what to do. But, if you want to donate to a non-sectarian group, there is always the Red Cross.
Let us all show the people of Japan that we are with them in this awful time. That we will do whatever it takes to help these people in a real time of trouble and crisis.

The Dear Leader's Reelection Is Inevitable-So Why Even Bother To Have A Campaign?

A theme that the Obamawhore media, and a few conservatives will buy into is that despite all the bad news, President Obama is probably going to win reelection in 2012.
Firstly, do not believe that for one moment. Nothing is that much of a lock 18 months until election day.
But, that did not stop Fox News Channel's Juan Williams from peddling this line on Fox News Sunday. That many people in the Republican party believe that no matter what, Barack Hussein Obama will be reelected president. And that the whole point of Mitt Romney running, as an example, is to pad speaking fees and the like.
Earth to Juan! Earth to Juan! Mitt Romney is a m i l l i o n a i r e. More of a millionaire than anyone of us will know. He does not have to have his mug out there to make a few extra millions. If Mr. Romney will run, it should be because he believes that he can beat the Dear Leader, President Obama.
But that is the theme the Obamawhore media wants many to believe.
Here is an article that appeared on Yahoo!.com.
And another article from the conservative Daily Caller that seems to think, yeah, BHO is gonna win again.
But just keep saying it and it will happen, right?
Well, here is something that should blow that whole theory out of the water.
A recent poll by Gallup showed that the Dear Leader, President Obama's positive/negative ratings by each state.
It is not good news.
The reliably liberal, Blue states on the coasts are still in the Dear Leader's corner. But, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is losing ground in states he won in 2008 and these are states he needs to win again if he should be reelected.
In Colorado, Indiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Virginia, key to the Dear Leader's victory in 2008, the numbers are going down. If not underwater.
If the Dear Leader, President Obama, does not keep these states in his column, he might want to get the measurements to the old home in Hyde Park.
These eight states are going to be key to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his chances to win reelection. If they are in the same state at the end of this year, it is a real sign that the Dear Leader, President Obama, will be in serious trouble. Not coasting to reelection.
Remember, many of these same people did not get the fact that Hillary Clinton was not going to be the Democrat nominee for president in 2008. And few, if any, really thought ol' Sen. John "F--- You" McCain was going to be the Republican nominee.
Another factor is that the Dear Leader, President Obama's historic victory in 2008 is now history. People on all sides now see a record for the Dear Leader, President Obama. To me, it is a bleak one. To many independents, it is a disappointment. To some of the true believers, they do not know what to make of the Dear Leader, President Obama. Some do not see him as all that much change that he promised.
Will the Dear Leader, President Obama, get that coalition back that won him the White House in 2008?
I do not believe that he will with the same passion and zeal. And he will not have the kind of conservative support that he did in 2008. For better or worse, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is the establishment. The very establishment so many of those that supported him in the first place that they do not like.
A lot of incumbents seemed unbeatable in past elections.
Oddly enough, Jimmah Carter was very alive in 1980. It appeared that the American people were more worried about Mr. Reagan than Mr. Carter. Until he went on to debate Mr. Reagan on October 28, 1980. Then the nation switched gears overnight and Mr. Reagan went on to a 44-state landslide.
We can not and should not let the Obamawhore media, or any so-called conservative enablers, tell anyone that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is a lock on reelection. He is not and should not be. On that we conservative, moderate and even liberal Republicans should agree.
Or we can save a lot of time and money and coronate the Dear Leader, President Obama, to his final term in office.
But that is why we have elections. Because in the end, the people make the decision, not the pundits. Period.

Competence Does Not Replace Passion

Ahh, the establishment conservative media is lining up behind their favorite Republican presidential candidates. Real and or imagined.
It appears that the New York Times house negro, er conservative, David Brooks, is looking at two former governors. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota. And to Mr. Brooks, the rest of the field are also rans.
Conservative insider, George Will, says that there are only five "plausible" Republican contenders for the presidential nod. And here they are according to Mr. Will:


Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, former Utah governor and departing ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, former Massachusetts governor Romney and former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty.


OK, a lot to quibble about with saying that this is it for the Republican party. But read the whole column by Mr. Will. It a righteous rant against one the Reverend Mike Huckabee and all but citing Birther propaganda about the Dear Leader, President Obama. The thrust of the column is that some Republicans are playing to such outliers as the Birthers and the like.
In some defense of the Rev. Mike, I do believe that he did mean Indonesia and not Kenya as where the Dear Leader, President Obama, spent some of his childhood. And I do believe that some of that time did get ingrained into a young Barack Obama that the United States was not all that great a nation. But he did speak stupidly and to some people, it is why he should not even be considered top tier.
A lot of people on the Republican side believe that it does not matter who the Republicans nominate. That the Dear Leader will win a second term.
That is a later post.
But back to this winnowing the field on the of the Republican establishment.
If Mr. Brooks and Mr. Will are right, the Republicans of 2012 will make the mistake that the Democrats made in 2004. They will nominate someone "electable" and nothing more.
And that, my friends, will lead to a second term for the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Let me offer why there are other, realistic and good potential candidates out there for the Republican party.
Passion.
Say what you want about passion, but it does often replace the whole argument being made by the so-called grown ups.
You know whose campaign had a huge amount of passion?
Why that of the current Dear Leader, President Obama. Only then he was known around here as Sen. Messiah Barack.
Just ask President Hilary Clinton how being a "grown up" got her to the White House.
Oops! My bad.
Again, the one with the passion and boundless support was then Sen. Messiah Barack.
In an unrelated story, The Other McCain pointed out how lousy a campaign former Sen. Carol Mosely Braun ran for mayor of Chicago. But in that piece was this link to how Sen. Clinton essentially blew her campaign.
Remember kids, she was the inevitable candidate. She was the only "grown up" in the Democrat field. She was a first lady, a senator and well, you know the rest of the story.
Let me tell you why all of the above, with the possible exception of Mr. Romney, are not what is needed for the Republican party in 2012.
Take Jon Huntsman. Please. I mean it. How is this guy going to explain to Republican voters why he became the Dear Leader, President Obama's ambassador to Red China? And what makes him much different than Mr. Romney? Maybe because he comes off a little less, oh how shall I write this, rough around the edges on the pesky social issues? Really, Mr. Huntsman is but a technocrat and while it may work as a governor, to run for president, you really have to get people excited to vote for you. Do not see it in Mr. Huntsman.
Ditto for Mitch Daniels. Again, he has waffled on the social issues as well. Yes, I do agree that this election will come down to the economy. And for many of us conservative Republicans, Gov. Daniels has been wonderful. But again, it appears that Gov. Daniels will not talk about anything else but the economy. And the reality is that our foreign policy, or lack of one, will rear its ugly head. As well as, like it or not, social issues.
Tim Pawlenty is a good guy, but he supported Sen. John "F--- You" McCain early on and that was not a good judgement on his part. Would things have turned out differently if he had supported someone else? I am not sure. But Mr. Pawlenty came out early and it did help the campaign in the long run. I can not see rewarding T-Paw with the Republican nod for backing the worse candidate this side of Sen. Bob Dole.
And I like Haley Barbour. He has been a great governor for Mississippi. But, he has been governor of Mississippi. Like it or not, and I do not like it, Gov. Barbour is from as Deep South as one can get. He came of age during the epic civil rights struggles of the 1960s. And while not anything like a Klansman or anything like that, he certainly does not come off all that engaged in the time. And the optics and sounds, Southern White conservative vs. Northern Black liberal. It just gives many cringes. And it may, wrongly I believe, turn people away.
And I come back to Mr. Romney.
He needs to want to be president. He needs to have the fire in the belly. He needs to talk about his time as governor of Massachusetts. He does need to explain RomneyCare in an easy to understand way. He needs to admit its faults and the good aspects of it. And he needs to keep hammering away the fact that what works, or doesn't work, in Massachusetts does not need to be made for the whole United States. He needs to make those of us who have supported him to want to do so. He needs to get us excited.
Which leads to some potential candidates that the establishment can not stand.
I don't care for the Rev. Mike Huckabee. But he does come off as someone that wants to be president. He cares about issues and it shows. He has baggage, but supporters will not care. They will crawl through broken glass for the guy.
Same for Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor. She has also mastered Facebook, Twitter and modern technology to get her message out there. And she has not been afraid to mix it up with fellow Republicans. Just ask Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey.
And he is another fellow that has passion for trying to straighten the ship in hapless New Jersey. He ruffles the feathers and says some things that need to be said. And he is saying them with passion and like that parent that has to tell tough truths to the kiddies.
Since Richard Nixon became president in 1968, Americans want some one that relates to them on a level. Nixon did that with the "Silent Majority". Ford came in 1975, tried the Return To Normalcy, but he was in a lousy position from the get go. And some guy named Ronald Reagan said it is time to change course in the Republican party. He did not do so in 1976, but made Gerald Ford a better candidate. But nothing could compare to the peanut farmer from Georgia, Jimmah Carter. He came off as a regular guy becoming the leader of the Free World. OK, maybe a little too regular. Way too much baggage and he just came off as in over his head. Then came along Ronald Reagan. He inspired people to be better. That we are Americans and we can do anything. In other words, Mr. Reagan to many was the embodiment of the American Dream. George H. W. Bush seemed to be the cool cat compared to the Massachusetts Democrat Gov. Michael Dukakis. But, a cooler guy, the guy that could feel our pain, Bill Clinton, came along and won two terms with less than 50% of the popular vote each time. But talk about baggage. And tawdriness. He left a bad taste in many an American's mouth. And then came along George W. Bush. Promising to restore honor to the White House. And we come to our current leader, the Dear Leader, President Obama, the first Black to be elected president.
What all these candidates had in common is that they won hard-fought campaigns because their supporters would do anything to get out and vote for them. And to bring others to the fold. Oddly, all those that lost seemed to be competent and electable. To a certain group of people.
Bottom line is that while competency is very important, a candidate has to have people want to vote for them. Not against a candidate. That shows in every campaign when the loser usually throws everything but the kitchen sink to try to thwart the other guys. It just does not work.
As the headline says competence does not replace passion. And the Republicans better realize that before it is too late.

Uh, Let's Not Compare The Egyptian Revolution To The American Revolution

I have not commented on the recent "revolution" that swept Egypt recently. Other than to note the obvious that former President Hosni Mubarak is no longer the president.
But let us look at the situation right now.
The military is in control of the nation right now. In fact, things are not all that as workers are staging strike after strike. As if a military government can right 40 years of corruption and authoritarian rule in 40 minutes. Oh, did I not write that the military is now the government in Egypt?
The reality is that there has not been a leader or leaders of the so-called Egyptian Revolution. There is no George Washington. No Benjamin Franklin. No Thomas Jefferson. No, all that seems to speak for a lot of Egyptians is the sixth most powerful man in the Islamic world, Sheik Yusuf Qaradawi. And this is supposed to be a "moderate" voice of Islam. I guess he is a a strange way.
Make no mistake. He wants to see a totally Islamic Egypt. And nearly 1,000,000 Egyptians crowded Tahir Square when he spoke recently on a Friday afternoon.
It kind of reminded me of another, so-called moderate dude that went back to his home nation after a 30-year exile.
The name of that dude escapes me for a moment. Darn it, who was that. Oh yeah! Why none other than Ruhollah Khomeini. Most know that guy as the Ayatollah Khomeini. Oh yeah, he turned out to be a real middle-of-the-roader, didn't he?!
So far, thankfully, the military has not defected to the leadership of Sheik Qardawi. At least not yet.
And so many people have hailed what happened in Egypt. Many believe that voila! Democracy will and even has broken out. And these same people blasted former President George W. Bush for having the gall to believe that democracy could take place in Iraq.
Yet I would like to submit to you this column by the great Dennis Prager.
Mr. Prager shares my concern that this will turn into more of a Sunni version of Iran than a Jeffersonian democracy.
A couple of Mr. Prager's points strike me.
His second point, that pro-American tyanical leaders are replaced by worse people. He cites, as example, Castro in Cuba. The aforementioned ayatollah in Iran. And I will throw in Vietnam after the communist North seized the South in 1975.
The fifth point is that these people have lived under a pseudo-socialist state and it will be very hard to wean them off of it. As much as the majority yearn for freedom, enough will not like if subsidies for food, and employment by the state come to an end. And it has to so a free society can emerge. It should be noted that one of the reasons the people had enough is because of food shortages.
Point number six is the Obamawhore media not reporting on the bad guys. Mr. Prager notes the attack on CBS reporter Lara Logan in which in between sexual assaults, she was shouted as a "Jew! Jew!" And making this Sheik Qaradawi to not be all that bad. Trust me, this guy is bad news. The armed forces can not be all that trusted. They will go with the wind as they ended up doing in ousting Mr. Mubarak in the first place.
The fact is that Team Dear Leader has been playing catch up since the uprising began. And they still have no clue as to what to do where Egypt is concerned.
What is needed is to influence events on the ground. There needs to be an effort to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from gaining power. There needs to be an effort to reach out to real moderates that want to see a real republic based on the rule of law. And there needs to be a way to find the Egyptian George Washington.
If the Egyptian George Washington is not identified, then the Sunni Ayatollah Khomeini will be in charge. And that is bad news for the United States.