Archive for November 7th, 2008


The First Press Conference: Off to a Bad Start

November 7, 2008

Less than a week after PE-BHO’s grandmother died and a few days after becoming PE, how does the first press conference go?

What we’ll remember from the “historic” first press conference is that the guy made fun of an aging widow recovering from an injury.  Via Ben Smith:

“I have spoken to all of them who are living,” he says. “I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any séances,” he says.

He was responding to a question, from the Chicago Sun-Times’ Lynn Sweet, about whether he’d spoken to all of the “living” former presidents.

He was apparently referring to the reports in the 1980s that Nancy Reagan consulted an astrologer while in the White House. Mary Todd Lincoln, however, reportedly held actual séances.

While completely tasteless, that is not the most offensive thing to come out of his mouth during the press conference. We are about to see the biggest expansion of government since, well, the Bush administration:

New stimulus package

Auto industry bailout

Extension of unemployment benefits

Before he does any of this, PE-BHO needs to tell us where the money is coming from.


I Almost Feel Bad For This Woman, But the Uninformed Get What they Deserve

November 7, 2008

Almost. That is contempt you hear.

Update:  MIchelle has posted the Superintendent’s response to this travesty:

I was shocked when I saw the clip of an interaction between a Cumberland County Schools teacher and her students as posted on YouTube. While neutral discussion of the political process is appropriate, at no time, particularly with elementary students, should a teacher infuse his/her political views into the discussion. Most disconcerting was the military slant that made its way into this discussion. We are a military community, serving over 15,000 military students and their families. We value the sacrifices, not only of the military parents but also those of their families.

We believe that military children are our children, military spouses are many of our employees, and military service men and women are our heroes. We proudly serve our military children and have received national awards for our support of military families.

I was particularly disturbed to see the uncomfortable position in which our children were placed due to the inappropriate actions of one of our teachers. Please be assured that the actions exhibited in this video are not consistent with the vision of the CCS. Moreover, the actions of one teacher do not represent the 7000 employees in our organization.

Once the video was brought to my attention, I immediately launched an investigation. Personnel laws prevent me from releasing information regarding individual employees and personnel action taken. I can assure you that upon completion of the investigation, I will take appropriate action.

Dr. William Harrison
CCS’ Superintendent


Change in Washington/UPDATE

November 7, 2008

The leadership of the Democratic Party has been promoting a bipartisan America for the past year; that we as Democrats, Republicans, and Independents need to come together for a better America.  If I had ten wampum for every time I heard “reaching across the aisle” in this election, I would have a lot of useless wampum.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

When Obama was named our next POTUS I was ready to see this change from the Democratic leadership on down.  When have they ever lied to me before?  Well, we see what the Democrats meant by “reaching across the aisle” less than 72 hours after Obama is named POTUS.  Senator Harry Reid, the Senate Majority Leader, has reached across the aisle.  Not with an extended hand, but with an opened hand to bitch-slap to Joe Lieberman.  Joe Lieberman has been an asset to the US Senate since 1988.  Although he is named as an Independent, he caucuses with the Democratic Party.  Harry Reid has announced that he will be removing Lieberman from his Chairmanship of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; one of the most important committees in the Senate.  (Via the most liberal internet paper of all The Huffington Post)

Reid, in a sternly worded statement after the 45-minute meeting, said no official decisions have been made. But an aide to the Nevada Democrat said Reid was leaning toward removing Lieberman as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the discussions were confidential.

It seems to me that when the Democrats said that each Party needs to come together, they really meant that the Conservatives and Republicans need to come to their side or else.  This feeling I have is spelled out perfectly in Senator Reid’s own words. (via the Hartford Courant)

“While I understand that Senator Lieberman has voted with Democrats a majority of the time, his comments and actions have raised serious concerns among many in our Caucus. I expect there to be additional discussions in the days to come, and Senator Lieberman and I will speak to our Caucus in two weeks to discuss further steps.”

By “further steps” does Harry Reid mean Lieberman better side with the Democrats or else; so much for a Change in Washington.  If I had to make a guess, we will have 4 more years of the same old politics the Democrats promised they would set aside. 


Rahm Emanuel, Obam’s new choice as Chief of Staff has also been tied to the collapse and the alleged fraudulent accounting practices with FreddieMac and FannieMae.  The Good ole’ Boys are back together again.  Let the change begin?



What has 23 Pairs of X Chromosomes and is Missing from this Picture?

November 7, 2008
No Hockey Mom?
No Hockey Mom?

Greta deals with this.


The New Conservatism, Same as the Old Conservatism

November 7, 2008

While voices in the media are sounding the death knell for conservatism due to the epic fail of this election, the feeling on the ground, strangely, has never been more optimistic. All over America, I hear, a younger generation is taking the reins from the older one and is mobilized. Here in New York, organization efforts have begun. What John McCain could not make us do in pursuit of his victory, we are doing in the wake of his defeat. The oncoming groundswell is not a celebration of the defeat of McCain, a man who would not have been a bad president, but someone whose ideology on many many subjects undermined the prinicples of conservatism.  What we here at TBV and what others in the movement are doing will mirror, we hope, the work that Markos Moulitsas and MoveOn did for the liberals. For better or worse, they gave their party the voice of their people. Unfortunately, their people are crazy.

In the coming weeks we will be organizing on the ground in several key states for 2010. At this point, we are gathering demographic information and thinking of the smartest ways to elect good representatives. Remember that elected officials should not primarily be leaders, but should be a representative reflection of your beliefs and ideals.

Just as the hatchet/scalpel analogy was used in the debates with regard to the size of government, I would like to use a sniper/turret analogy here. In our current position (we will be defending more seats than the Democrats in the 2010 senate race), we will need to build a fort around our incumbents and mow down any opposition. I see AT LEAST two likely vacancies coming from our side and we will need good candidates to fill those spots. On the other side, there are some big name Democrats in states that are not yet competitive that we can’t take out, i.e., Barbara Boxer and Pat Leahy. Devoting any funds towards opposition campaigning would be a waste of money. However, if you are in Vermont or California, look to the House and local governments.  However, there are several seats that I think we could pick off. Lone stragglers who will be well defended but the demographics of the state could be used in our favour. They have two years unleashed and that is opportunity for them to make mistakes.

If you are a reader of this site and are at all interested in running for something such as city council, state assembly, whatever, leave a message below and we will contact you. The country needs good federalists who believe in the letter of the Constitution and that this country bestows the individual, not the government, with the power to achieve anything.

We are not Neo-Cons although we support Israel’s right to exist and thrive. We are not Compassionate Conservatives although we want to help all those in our communities achieve their highest potentials. To do so, we need to empower the individual and the best way to do so is to unshackle the market and let entrepreneurs achieve.  That is the argument that our people need to make to the American people.

In yesterday’s WSJ, Karl Rove noted:

It is a tribute to his skills that Mr. Obama, the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, won in a country that remains center-right. Most pre-election polls and the wiggly exits indicate America remains ideologically stable, with 34% of voters saying they are conservative — unchanged from 2004. Moderates went to 44% from 45% of the electorate, while liberals went to 22% from 21%.

We are still a center right country and can win back the trust of the American electorate. We need the right people to make the case.

We at “Trust, but Verify” have started a Facebook Group to get the word out today.  Feel free to join and please invite all those who want a New Leadership, Big Ideas, and Conservative Roots.  Join HERE

– Yossarian

To leave you with some hope of change, Katherine Kersten from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

Over the years, America has experienced countless zigs and zags in economic and social policy, but has repeatedly proven its ability to right itself and avoid long-term damage. When liberal politicians in power over-reach, as they usually do, we can count on common sense to provide a corrective.

Take the 1930s, when the nation — buffeted by the Depression — seemed ripe for a lurch toward socialism. Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” strategy for recovery was grounded in a vision of big government as savior.

The New Deal’s centerpiece was the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which became law in June 1933. Roosevelt lauded the act as “the most important and far-reaching legislation ever enacted by the American Congress.”

The NIRA created a vast new bureaucracy to micro-manage the economy. Across the country, planners divided up markets — and set prices, wages and production quotas or rules — in sectors ranging from the steel industry to Mom and Pop grocery stores. Six months after the act’s passage, the burdensome industrial “codes” it sanctioned already covered 60 percent of American workers.

An anxious nation initially cheered Roosevelt’s plan. But the president and his “wise men” had overreached, as soon became clear. The NIRA raised prices, slowed recovery and stoked widespread resentment. By late 1934, many of Roosevelt’s staunchest Democratic allies were denouncing it. The act stood no chance of reauthorization, and in 1935 the U.S. Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.

Roosevelt’s grand plan failed to pull the nation out of the Depression. Nevertheless, in the 1940s and ’50s, America’s political class assumed that some form of state-controlled economy was inevitable, both here and in Europe. Republicans — led by a pliant Dwight D. Eisenhower — did little to resist its march.

Then, in the mid-1950s, an intellectual insurgency spearheaded by Buckley dared to speak truth to power. Buckley took on “a vast, complacent and apparently immovable status quo,” according to his colleague John O’Sullivan. He used a wry smile, a capacious intellect and an “emperor has no clothes” attitude to challenge an entrenched liberal orthodoxy.

Buckley brought together a remarkable collection of thinkers who laid the philosophical groundwork for the modern conservative movement. Once it gained political momentum, it gave birth to the Reagan Revolution — and an era of low taxes, free trade, enhanced competition and remarkable prosperity.

Yet conservative control didn’t last forever. In 1992, the Left enjoyed a new burst of optimism when Bill Clinton took office and promptly proposed a massive government takeover of America’s health care system. Once again, “big government” overreach provoked a reaction. In 1994, Republicans swept the U.S. House of Representatives.

Clinton spent his next six years in office accommodating his policies to America’s free market vision. Under him, Reagan’s legacy became entrenched in initiatives ranging from welfare reform to NAFTA.

We’ve just elected a Democratic Congress and a president whom the non-partisan National Journal has named as America’s “most liberal senator.” We can expect them to overreach, as their predecessors did. And in today’s global economy, the harmful consequences of economic missteps will likely become apparent far more quickly than in the past.

It’s time for conservatives to mount a new insurgency. That insurgency will proclaim that economic policies focused on wealth redistribution, rather than wealth creation, cannot produce prosperity. It will remind Americans that, despite their vague promises of “hope” and “change,” big-government enthusiasts are sooner or later revealed as emperors who have no clothes.


R.I.P. Compassionate Conservatism and Good Riddance

November 7, 2008

Dick Armey (one of the finest names in politics ever) writes in the WSJ:

The liberal pundits who embraced the candidacy of Barack Obama are also eager to issue a death certificate for free market capitalism. They’re wrong, and they remind me of what the great Willie Nelson once said: “I’m ragged but I’m right.”

To be sure, the American people have handed power over to the Democrats. But today there is a categorical difference between what Republicans stand for and the principles of individual freedom. Parties are all about getting people elected to political office; and the practice of politics too often takes the form of professional juvenile delinquency: short-sighted and self-centered.

This was certainly true of the Bush presidency. Too often the policy agenda was determined by short-sighted political considerations and an abiding fear that the public simply would not understand limited government and expanded individual freedoms. How else do we explain “compassionate conservatism,” No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug benefit and the most dramatic growth in federal spending since LBJ’s Great Society?

Fundamentally, while we do have core principles that differentiate us from the opposition, the base question should be our belief in federalism and the intentions of the Founders to vest powers in the states that were not enumerated in the Consitution. A government that can help the most people is a government that serves the fewest people. All across America, we have mayors, city councils, school boards, and governors that have the ear of the people in their district. They are in the best position to serve their constituencies.  A bigger national government is one that becomes blind to the individual. But hey, PE-BHO said that we are not a nation of individuals. We are the party of limited government, but President Bush, God bless him, dealt away his cards for Iraq. Barring a Obamabump in the road, Iraq will be a thriving country in ten years with Basra possibly ascending to become the new Dubai or Abu Dhabi.

What will be the fate of free market capitalism in America? Will the 2008 election look more like 1932 — or 1992?

On both occasions, Republican presidents had abandoned their party’s principles for bigger government policies that exacerbated difficult economic times. On both occasions, Democrats took control, largely hijacking the small-government, fiscally responsible rhetoric of their opponents. Of course, FDR’s election ushered in the New Deal, the most dramatic expansion of government power in American history, together with policy changes and economic uncertainty that inhibited investment and growth and locked in massive unemployment for nearly a generation.

The official agenda of the incoming administration is not so different from FDR’s. Whatever doubts remain about Mr. Obama’s governing principles can be cleared up by looking at the governing philosophy of the Democrats in Congress he will be crafting legislation with or the liberal constituencies he is indebted to support. Democrats will not be ambiguous. They have every right to be energized, and will attempt sweeping changes to our economy and the very nature of the relationship between individual American citizens and the federal government.

Their wish list is long. Charlie Rangel, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has said he would like to redistribute a trillion dollars through the tax code, including massive tax hikes on capital accumulation and individual entrepreneurship. Labor unions want to take away the right of a worker to a secret ballot in organizing elections. Radical environmentalists demand strict curbs on energy production and use. Hillary Clinton may have lost the primary, but expect Democrats to push her favorite idea: government-run heath care.


A Message From Machosauce as We Walk Off This Hangover

November 7, 2008