I was browsing YAHOO NEWS and couldn’t help but laugh at how far out of touch Democrats are on the war issue. (Analysis: Democrats grasp for Iraq plan – Yahoo! News). Basically, I think the Democrats have completely mis-interpreted the “message” that voters supposedly sent them. Here is the current interpretation…
“The public is saying, ‘We hired you to get out of Iraq ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù now figure it out,’” said Tom Matzzie, Washington director of the anti-war group MoveOn.org. “There is a risk that without action, frustration boils over into anger.”
Democrats argue that their failed efforts to thwart Bush’s war plans will ultimately pay off by ratcheting up pressure for a change.
“The administration is increasingly isolated and they are increasingly at odds with where the American people are,” said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record), D-Nev. “We’re going to keep on going at it until the administration changes course.”
Now, Harry Reid thinks that the PRESIDENT is at odds with the American People. Well, I hate to break his bubble, but recent poll numbers show the opposite. In fact, the American people want to WIN in Iraq.?Ǭ† A quick google search returned a page from Kudlo’s Blog (CNBC) that quotes the latest POS poll, which finds that…
By 53% to 43%, respondents say it’s still possible to establish a stable democracy in Iraq and reduce the threat of terrorism at home.
By 57% to 41%, voters want to finish the job in Iraq.
By 53% to 46%, voters think the Dems are going too far, too fast in pressing the President for troop withdrawal.
I find it hard to understand how a spokesman for Harry Reid–and perhaps the Democratic leadership can think the Country wants them to get out of Iraq when the public wants to finish the job by a 57% to 41% margin.?Ǭ† Who’s out of touch again?
I stumbled across this photo on Flickr and couldn’t help but pass it along to the rest of my readers. I absolutely love the ambiance and lighting here. I don’t even care what the music sounded like… it had to have been a cool concert.
You know, sometimes the utter ignorance of our members of congress is stunning. I just read on Yahoo News that Nancy Pelosi, House majority leader said,
“I do believe that Congress should assert itself, though, and make it very clear that there is no previous authority for the president, any president, to go into Iran.”
Shocking. Nancy Pelosi has obviously never read Article II of the United States Constitution where it says, “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States”. Its not as if there is some difficult question of interpretation here; the commander of the United States military requires no outside authority by which his acts are “authorized”. It is his, and his decision alone whether or not to use military force. Period.
But as if this weren’t enough, the democrats have decided not to defund the Iraqwar–and I realize this is somewhat of a digression.?Ǭ† Being the spineless cowards they are, they have decided to “force a slow end” to the war instead of de-funding it outright.
As described by participants, the goal is crafted to circumvent the biggest political vulnerability of the anti-war movement — the accusation that it is willing to abandon troops in the field. That fear is why many Democrats have remained timid in challenging Bush, even as public support for the president and his Iraq policies have plunged.
So basically, in order to obviate themselves of any responsibility for the negative consequences of leaving Iraq, they will force bush to choose between a failed Iraq and the sacrifice more American troops without any certainty they will be able to finish the job after his term is over. This essentially forces Bush to both impliment the democrat’s policy, and yet still take responsibility for any outcomes that may ensue (which cannot possibly be good). They, of course, would risk too much politically if their decision to pull out of Iraq causes another terrorist attack… so this is the way to wash their hands of any responsibility for their policies. As one of my favorite editors at the Wall Street Journal said in a recent email column,
So the idea is to keep the troops in harm’s way but take all steps possible to prevent them from prevailing, in the hope that the Democrats will benefit politically from American defeat.
It’s sickening… This entire Iraq issue has turned into nothing more than a partisan battle to win political power at home and ruin the presidency of their opponent–all the while letting our men and women die to ensure this end is reached. As Hitchens would say, they’ve fallen off the gutter into the sewer.
The motion at issue is plainly dishonest, in that exquisitely Congressional way of trying to have it both ways. (We reprint the text nearby.) The resolution purports to “support” the troops even as it disapproves of their mission. It praises their “bravery,” while opposing the additional forces that both President Bush and General David Petreaus, the new commanding general in Iraq, say are vital to accomplishing that mission. And it claims to want to “protect” the troops even as its practical impact will be to encourage Iraqi insurgents to believe that every roadside bomb brings them closer to their goal.
For those of you who don’t know, the New Statesman is a very liberal magazine run (I believe) out of Britian. A quick skim of their “about us” page revealed that it was created in 1913 “with the aim of permeating the educated and influential classes with socialist ideas”. You can imagine my surprise on my latest visit to their website to discover an article titled, “how the left went wrong”, by Nick Cohen.
Cohen’s article certainly includes valuable history–focusing specifically on a political figure named George Galloway, an ardent anti-war supporter and tried-and-true communist (and also a fierce rival of Christopher Hitchens — which has resulted in a number of very intense and cut-throat debates, of which I thoroughly enjoyed.. see Siexon, Slate). And, although I think a strong rebuke of Galloway is certainly called for given his positions on various issues ranging from his support of Saddam to his admiration for Fidel Castro, it was not the abandonment of Galloway that so interested me about the article.
In what is the first time in my own memory, I have found a self-proclaimed liberal who admits, or heartily agrees with the premise I have always maintained — that the media 1) plays it soft on liberal guests, 2) suffers from “group think”.
when you hire upper-middle-class arts graduates, pay them well and allow them to work, eat and sleep together in west London, there’s bound to be a “Collective Group Think”. In Iraq’s case, it did not come out in the hard questions they asked the other side, but in the soft questions they asked their own side. For years, the BBC’s attack-dog presenters couldn’t manage to give one opponent of the war a tough interview. Not even Galloway. My colleagues were rich men and women by British standards, let alone world standards. They kept silent so they could maintain the illusion that the family of the “left” was flawless.
This is perhaps the funniest thing I’ve seen on television for a long time… I’m really not sure who to laugh at more–Ali G (aka Bruno) or the fashion designers!
In my mass media class we discussed the seeming contradiction in two supreme court decisions: Tornillo and Red Lion. In Tornillo, the Miami Herald was challenging a state statute granting a political candidate the right to reply to any criticism by a newspaper. Allow me to quote the relevant passages…
we reaffirm unequivocally the protection afforded to editorial judgment and to the free expression of views [in newspapers]
The Power of a privately owned newspaper to advance its own political , social, and economic views is bounded by only two factors: first, the acceptance of a sufficient number of readers … and second, the journalistic integrity of its editors and publishers.
a newspaper or magazine is not a public utility subject to “reasonable” governmental regulation … we prefer “the power of reason as aplied through public discussion” and remain intensely skeptical about those measures that would allow government to insulate itself into the editorial rooms of this Nation’s press.
As my instructor continually reminds us, if you know the values the Judge finds important, you can almost always predict the outcome of the case. Here, it is clear that three values influence the justices’ decisions: editorial autonomy, the unregulated marketplace of ideas, and limited government power. These values cause the court to find in favor of the newspaper instead of the government. Now compare this to the Red Lion case involving BROADCAST MEDIA…
Just as the Government may limit the use of sound-amplifying equipment potentially so noisy that it drowns out civilized private speech, so may the government limit the use of broadcast equipment. The [right of a broadcaster] does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others.
There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community…
There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all…
Now, how does one reconcile these two cases? Is not editorial autonomy in direct competition with the unlimited private censorship of speech? How can one protect against the private censorship of speech and yet protect the editorial judgment of private newspapers at the same time?
Fortunately, the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of truth, and its not the end of the world if their cases contradict… but one wonders what rationale is available to explain such a seeming contradiction. Does the limited nature of the broadcast spectrum warrant government protections for the fair use–just as it may restrict an electric company who monopolizes a limited electric network? What are the values espoused in the Red Lion case? Equality of opportunity for speech? Efficient use of a scarce resource? Fairness? A Complete public debate??? Should those values win in the end?
John Edwards, after announcing his plan to run for President… (again… cough), has announced his plan to save us all from the evils of high health care costs. You can probably imagine that I instinctively shudder at the thought of “universal health care”–in any of its forms; but I thought it would be worthwhile to explain why I react so negatively by using Edwards own words.
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Sunday his plan for universal health care would require higher taxes and cost up to $120 billion year. “The bottom line is we’re asking everybody to share in the responsibility of making health care work in this country. Employers, those who are in the medical insurance business, employees, the American people ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äù everyone will have to contribute in order to make this work,” the 2004 vice presidential nominee said.
First, Edwards isn’t asking anybody anything… he is going to demand through legislation that people comply. Secondly, why is it my responsibility to “make health care work”? Is it my responsibility to make the auto industry work? The fast food industry? The housing industry? Why is it our collective responsibility to make private businesses work? Private businesses work if they give the market something wants in the most efficient way possible. It’s the responsibility of their executives and shareholders to guarantee these two criteria are met–not my responsibility.
Edwards said his plan would aim to provide health care coverage for the 47 million people who currently lack it and reduce the cost of health care coverage for middle-class families, partly by making health care programs more efficient.
Um… he doesn’t say how these programs are going to magically become more efficient with government intervention. Any ideas?
“We want to make sure everybody’s covered. We want to help middle-class families with the costs. We want to try to create competition that doesn’t exist today,” he said.
Competition is created by increasing the number of competitors in the marketplace.. not by subsidizing the industry with millions more dollars of federal funds.
To accomplish all this, Edwards said he would expand Medicaid and a program that now provides coverage to 6 million people, mostly children, and provide federal health care subsidies. He said he wants employers to play a bigger role, either by offering coverage or buying into “health markets” that would include a government plan.
This all sounds pretty and polished… but why would employers have any incentive to “buy into” a federal health care plan if the government is going to pick up the tab… with the working class’ tax dollars? If the Government is going to guarantee coverage, what incentive is there for businesses to spend their hard-earned dollars on coverage? Edwards’ plan is based on the flawed premise that all businesses are going to continue providing coverage to the entire population and the 47 million “uninsured” will remain this static number of people–a problem encountered by nearly all federal entitlement programs.
I may post more on this topic as the issue becomes more central to the upcoming campaigns… but I’ve got other things to do at the moment.
If you haven’t gathered by now… my blog posts usually have a high correlation to quotes from things I read or people I hear… and this post is no different. If you didn’t already know, Democratic Senator George Biden said recently about fellow Senator Barak Obama,
‘I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy’ (emphasis added)
One can only imagine Biden said this because Obama impressed this upon him–and, one could also conclude that such an opinion was impressed because of the uniqueness (in Biden’s mind) of the quality in question… namely Obama’s cleanliness.
Now, Biden is getting SOME slack for this comment, but I think it would be helpful to remember the comparative slack given to another Senator who said the following words.
“I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either,”
Trent Lott, former Senate majority leader, was forced to resign his post because of those words. Not only do they not even mention blacks in any way, but they were said in the context of wishing a very old and feeble man a happy birthday… and yet Lott was crucified for their utterance–by Democrats, by the media, by blacks across the country.
I wonder though, and perhaps you could answer the questions yourself:
Which statement is more overtly racist?
Has the media held Biden to the same standards as they held Lott, or have they quickly forgotten the story?
Who behaved better, Senate Democrats in the Lott case or Senate Republicans in the Biden case? Who was more ruthless in their attacks?
These questions bring to mind another interesting quote. During the Lott fiasco, many Democrats thought that Lott should be “censured” for such a comment. The eerie silence of Democrats in this case isn’t surprising. They quickly forgive racism if its one of their own, but exalt their own moral superiority when it is convenient to do so (one needs go no farther than their tolerance of Robert Byrd). They protect and forgive for overt acts of racism but call for blood when race isn’t even uttered. The media is no better.
But all things being equal, I doubt Biden actually meant anything racist by his comments… and Lott probably didn’t either. Were it not for a troubling double standard applied to Republicans, this post might have been much different. Is “clean” really a racially charged word? Is calling someone “ghetto” or “white trash” any better? Do we not all hear those vernacular regularly without even a second thought to their racial overtones? This media episode points out the sensitivity, insecurity, and fealty to the gospel of political correctness everyone in Washington seems to suffer from–and it kinda makes mes sick!
Shocking. Nancy Pelosi has obviously never read Article II of the United States Constitution where it says, “The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States”. Its not as if there is some difficult question of interpretation here; the commander of the United States military requires no outside authority by which his acts are “authorized”. It is his, and his decision alone whether or not to use military force. Period.
In my mass media class we discussed the seeming contradiction in two supreme court decisions: Tornillo and Red Lion. In Tornillo, the Miami Herald was challenging a state statute granting a political candidate the right to reply to any criticism by a newspaper. Allow me to quote the relevant passages…