Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Liberal’

Yesterday, President Obama spoke to Senate Democrats about their questions and concerns. During the one interesting exchange with Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln, President Obama offered a summary of his response to her question. Here is that summary;

So the point I’m making — and Blanche is exactly right — we’ve got to be non-ideological about our approach to these things. We’ve got to make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can’t be demonizing every bank out there. We’ve got to be the party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs. We’ve got to be in favor of competition and exports and trade. We don’t want to be looking backwards. We can’t just go back to the New Deal and try to grab all the same policies of the 1930s and think somehow they’d work in the 21st century.

I just have a few points on this loaded paragraph. First, what is the deal with “like it or not”? Who would not like a healthy and functioning financial system? Who is the President assuming would not like it?

Second, if we can’t be demonizing every bank out there, why is the President demonizing every bank out there? The bank tax he has proposed, and the populist anger of the State of the Union address belie the fact that he is doing the opposite of what he is suggesting.

Third, the sentence, “So the point I’m making — and Blanche is exactly right — we’ve got to be non-ideological about our approach to these things. We’ve got to make sure that our party understands that, like it or not, we have to have a financial system that is healthy and functioning, so we can’t be demonizing every bank out there. We’ve got to be the party of business, small business and large business, because they produce jobs. We’ve got to be in favor of competition and exports and trade. We don’t want to be looking backwards. We can’t just go back to the New Deal and try to grab all the same policies of the 1930s and think somehow they’d work in the 21st century” is not what worries me, because we have survived 80 years in spite of the “Bad Deal”. I am scared, however, of what the 21st century plans are, and how exponentially they will grow our ballooning debt.

I could go on, but as you can see from this brief excerpt, our President is looking every bit the radical that we thought he was two years ago.

Read Full Post »

Glen Beck thinks so. The President does give the impression that he is speaking down to his audience. During the State of the Union Address, the constant thought that came to mind was that this speech was a college lecture, and we had a lot to learn. When he spoke to the Republicans on their weekend retreat, once again, the lecturer in him came out. Now that he is the President, the skillful, charismatic campaigner has given way to the know-all professor.

Read Full Post »

Below are some links that I have found interesting in the past week. Enjoy yourself as you catch up with the news of the week.

A Fiscal Catastrophe in the Making

It may be surprising to some, due to the hype over the 4th Qtr. GDP numbers, but there is an increasing amount of contrary indicators on the economic condition of the USA.

Obama and the CPUSA

If you were surprised by the President’s leftward orientation in the State of the Union Address, then you will probably be surprised by the similarities highlighted in this article between the President and an infamous political party.

The Obama Contradiction

While I don’t always find myself agreeing with Peggy Noonan, I can appreciate this column for highlighting an area of concern in the President’s State of the Union Address.

Why Elitists Fail

Isn’t it obvious?

This article is worth it for the following quote alone, “The Liberal cannot strike wholeheartedly at the communist for fear of wounding himself in the process,”

The Wrong Financial Reforms

Where are Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae in all of this? Rank populism aside, there is also sufficient cronyism to make one ill.

Read Full Post »

No matter the spin, no matter the excuses, no matter the reasons offered, the Democrats are left with a very uncomfortable association. Osama bin Laden has been reading up on Democratic talking points, and in his most recent diatribe he pronounced some of the following gems taken from the New York Times:

Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality

All of the industrialised countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility

Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the Mafia,

They are the true terrorists, and therefore we should refrain from dealing in the U.S. dollar and should try to get rid of this currency as early as possible.

Also from the UK Guardian:

In the latest recording, he calls out developed world economies for continuing to produce global warming pollution even after signing on to the Kyoto protocol. America stayed outside Kyoto, which Osama noted.”George Bush junior, preceded by [the US] congress, dismissed the agreement to placate giant corporations. And they are themselves standing behind speculation, monopoly and soaring living costs.”

“They are also behind ‘globalisation and its tragic implications’. And whenever the perpetrators are found guilty, the heads of state rush to rescue them using public money.”

Now the common argument put forth in the wake of these revelations is that this is an attempt by bin Laden to “expand his audience”. Take the quote from the UK Daily Mail below:

The speech, which included almost no religious rhetoric, has been interpreted as an attempt by the terror leader to broaden the appeal of his message beyond Islāmic militants.

Read Full Post »

I am posting several responses to the President’s speech on Wednesday night. Today I want to address the section on the Citizens United case. I won’t actually comment on the substance of the statement, but I do want to offer commentary on both Justice Alito’s and the President’s comments. For insight into the accuracy of the claims please read here and here.

I have no problem with the President asserting that he does not agree with a Supreme Court decision. I even believe that he could do so during the State of the Union Address, but the manner and tone of this President’s remarks were out-of-line. He was antagonistic and derisive in attacking a branch of the government. Instead of demagoguery the President should have offered ideas. He could suggest that Congress draft legislation to address the issue, but to call the credibility of the Court into question as he did is unconscionable.

Justice Alito found himself in a difficult situation. Decorum demands that Justices refrain from public comment and political involvement. He should have kept silent, but in a way I am glad he did not. If he had remained silent, this likely would only have raised a minimum of discussion on a fact check report. However, now the internet is ablaze with commentary on this quote.

In the end, he should never have been put in this position in the first place.

Read Full Post »

In my first post I outlined three “pillars” of conservatism – rights, respect, and responsibility. I will be posting several articles giving greater consideration to these “pillars” over the next few weeks. In regard to respect, Conservatism supports a high view of the individual, whereas liberalism divides people by groups and classes, which are set against each other. Liberals cannot escape these personal categories. In contrast, Conservatives define themselves by ideas and actions. For example, whenever liberals speak of the current President, they cannot help but notice his race. How else can you explain the gaffes by Chris Matthews, Joe Biden, and Harry Reid – all three highly accomplished public speakers. I think that Freud would have something to say about this.  

Read Full Post »