all ‘politics -yuck’ posts:
Political thoughts and observations, serious or otherwise.
– j. hart Saturday, 04-03-10, 01:22:56am
The past two election cycles, we’ve put some heavy-duty hippies in Ohio congressional seats. Senator Brown and Representative Kilroy wanted to remind us of that, so they gave a fun Obamacare pep rally to a union group on Thursday. I personally find myself taking the lazy, jaded, “I prefer conservatives, but a politician’s a politician” mindset more often than I should. Mary Jo Kilroy sharpens the mind:
Kilroy said the health-care measures, such as extending coverage to the uninsured and eliminating insurance restrictions based on pre-existing conditions, will “improve the lives of all Americans.”
“It is paid for and will lower the deficit,” Kilroy said. “What is not to like about that?
“This is the beta version. We’re going to keep working.”
And let’s not forget Sherrod Brown’s contribution to this conversation:
Brown called the health-care reforms the most important cause since civil rights in the 1960s.
“The main reason people are living longer is because of activists and progressives getting the government to fight for things that matter to them,” the senator said.
Representative Kilroy describes as “paid for” a bill that uses 10 years of taxes, fines, and mythical cuts to pay for 6 years of outlays. Senator Brown literally thinks we owe our lives to the government and to the politicians dedicated to its limitless expansion. When our taxes go even higher, remember that Kilroy and Brown were shoveling more coal as the Democrats’ entitlement train went off a cliff. More handouts! More debt! More big-government rhetoric with no connection to reality!
Read those quotes again and let ‘em sink in. We elected these people. We probably should not have.
– j. hart Thursday, 04-01-10, 09:48:26pm
You’ve got to hand it to President Obama, he knows what he’s good at and he sticks with it. Obama is a terrific speaker when he’s reading from a prompter and the media acts as if finally, the spoken word lives up to its potential. Because we have so much more than politics going on in our lives, meaningless soundbites will always be well-received by a certain percentage of the electorate.
During an enthusiastic, campaign-style appearance in Maine’s largest city, Obama mocked the pundits and pollsters who say he isn’t getting a boost from his yearlong campaign to pass the sweeping reform.
Every story about President Obama contains some variation of this sentence. Obama continues to talk as if he can solve any problem at no cost, while promoting legislation that increases the federal government’s bulk without an honest number in sight. It’s difficult to defend life while catering to the abortion lobby; difficult to curb unemployment when your advisers are union goons and lifetime politicians; difficult to write bipartisan legislation in a room containing half a dozen left-of-left Democrats. It may also be challenging to save money by expanding entitlements, but I’m reaching a little here. At any rate, gravity eventually takes its toll.
That doesn’t mean Obama will abandon his “I’m from the government and I’m here to help — let me prove it by handing you these other suckers’ money” bit:
“Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm and you planted some seeds, and they came out the next day and they looked and – ‘Nothing’s happened. There’s no crop. We’re going to starve. Oh, no! It’s a disaster!’ It’s been a week, folks. So, before we find out if people like health care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought.”
This is exactly like that, if seeds cost $2,000,000,000.
– j. hart Monday, 03-22-10, 09:43:04pm
National Review has an interview with Rep. Paul Ryan, one of a few bright lights on the right side of the aisle in Congress:
“We need to become the party of liberty and freedom,” Ryan argues. “We’re not doing enough. We can do better, and we will — because we have no choice. If we’re going to offer the country a completely different vision, we can’t be Democratic-lite or resign ourselves to be slightly more efficient managers and tax-collectors for the welfare state. We have to break with that and give people a clear and distinct difference.”
Hope and change as defined by President Obama are exactly what all of us wild-eyed conservatives said they’d be – schlocky advertising and accelerated government growth. That’s clearer today than at any other point this past year. Obama has demonstrated no interest in transparency, no patient bipartisanship, no meaningful variation from the leftist playbook of demonizing private employers while promising unsustainable entitlements to “the middle class.”
Congressman Ryan has been at the forefront of the GOP for months, suggesting solutions to America’s domestic problems that don’t require more spending, more IRS agents, more regulation and taxation. The Democrats’ solution to every domestic problem is to throw more of our money at it, which fits perfectly with a foreign policy of shrinking defense spending as yet another way to show our enemies how cuddly and disinterested we are.
Ryan’s speech yesterday on the House floor is an important summary of what the entire Republican Party ought to stand for:
In November we’re going to have very clearly defined options – I hope Ryan means what he says, and I hope he finds no shortage of trustworthy allies in D.C. over the coming months and years.
– j. hart Thursday, 03-18-10, 09:33:57pm
If you’re wondering what sort of valuable services the Senate health care bill could be providing this time next decade, see the future in the leftist bastion that is California’s state government:
The six-member California Division of Occupational Safety and Health standards board voted unanimously on the advice of staff to create an advisory committee to report back on whether to change state law to require safe-sex protections for adult-film actors and actresses.
This is an article from the LA Times, not The Onion. I’m sure. I double-checked.
Should porn “actors” use protection when “performing” their “acts?” Probably, unless they’re in the mood for some sexually transmitted diseases. This is obvious even to a science-hatin’ Christian with a running total of zero “partners.” But, the sort of thing that’s clear to a loser in Ohio is cause for a new advisory committee in California, where unionized state workers have run the government into the ground even without a committee to study whether it’s wise to have copious amounts of unprotected sex.
“We believe the state of California has a responsibility to regulate these workplaces as they do every other workplace,” AIDS Healthcare Foundation President Michael Weinstein told the board.
The state of California has a responsibility to regulate everything, as far as the state of California is concerned. Small wonder the vote to form a committee was unanimous. Imagine being asked this question: Should we form a new committee that will help justify the existence of your cushy job? Not many people would answer “No,” which is why the size of government trends in only one direction.
A former porn star points out that they don’t go into this business due to an abundance of brains:
“You think you’re safe but you’re not; in between scenes, you don’t know what other actors are doing,” James told the board.
While filming a porno, it’s difficult to be sure whether the people you’re having promiscuous sex with for money might be making unhealthy decisions off camera. The nanny-staters want you to know your concerns will be tended to, and as they venture into uncharted regulatory waters it’s clear that even a stupid law like mandated STD testing for the porn industry means a convoluted, money-burning process.
The Senate health bill creates dozens of federal boards, councils, and committees. Think these will be staffed entirely by health care and insurance professionals who know what’s best? Certainly only rational, fiscally sound decisions will be made by these new government employees. Decisions like the rational, fiscally sound decisions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid make on a daily basis.
Congressman Boehner shared a graph last November displaying the mess of bureaucracy created by the House version of the bill as it stood at the time. Add one, subtract one, change a name here and there – this is what the leftist elites running Washington want. Countless new boards with the power to form committees with the power to impose regulations. All of their salaries coming out of our paychecks. Few of them producing anything of value.
Call. Your. Representatives.
– j. hart Tuesday, 03-16-10, 09:36:23pm
The Washington Post engages in a bit of light cheerleading for President Obama’s speech south of Cleveland this week:
It is difficult to judge, amid one of the most intense political battles in recent memory, whether Obama is moving the needle toward greater acceptance of his health-care ambitions. But his reassurances about Medicare and other issues found support among skeptics in Strongsville.
“I was against it. I feel more positive for it now. Hopeful,” said Mary Jo O’Toole, another local retiree, after Obama spoke at a community center here.
Forgive me if I suggest the possibility that the sort of Ohioan who attends an Obama rally and believes his platitudes after more than a year of audaciously broken campaign promises was never much of a skeptic.
Still, not everyone has a firm opinion, and many admit they have a limited understanding of the details. Voters often say they are not sure whom to believe, offering a version of a comment by Patrick O’Toole, Mary Jo’s husband: “You hear this from one side and that from the other side, and you don’t know what’s right.”
We cannot afford the Democrats’ health care plan. We can’t. If you’re an optimist or have had few interactions with elected officials, I can understand leftist policies sounding good. Until you compare them to existing entitlements (bankrupt) or ask how we’re going to pay for them (taxes, taxes, and more taxes). President Obama saying we can get something for nothing doesn’t suddenly make it possible to get something for nothing.
…Obama’s task is tough. After Patrick O’Toole thought about it overnight, he had second thoughts. “He’s a great salesman, but I still would’ve walked out of the showroom without a car,” he said.
I think the car salesman analogy is appropriate – unfortunately, not all Americans are as reasonable as Mr. O’Toole. When Rep. Pelosi, Senator Reid, and President Obama sell a car, they go right to the flagship model; and don’t worry about the price! They’ll arrange for the fat cats in the corporate office to foot your bill.
Mary Jo O’Toole summarizes the problem for small-government proponents:
“He sounded convincing.”
– j. hart Sunday, 02-28-10, 01:58:04pm
I finally got around to listening to a Ricochet podcast, which I’ve been seeing recommended around the webs for a month or so. Episode 5, recorded on Friday 02/26, features Rob Long, Peter Robinson, Mark Steyn, and Andrew Breitbart. They discuss – among other things – last week’s health summit, and humorless institutionalized leftism.
Ricochet’s a great listen if you’re into that sort of thing. It’s the perfect accompaniment to a game of Filler 2 on Kongregate.com! Or to a commute, if you have one of those Empee-three Players and a car that knows how to talk to it…
– j. hart Saturday, 02-27-10, 12:54:57am
The New York Times confirms that, after President Obama’s Thursday Theater proved a helpful showcase for ideas Republicans have been touting since last summer, Nancy Pelosi is readying spoonfuls of sugar:
Seeing no prospect of a bipartisan agreement on health care, Congressional Democrats said Friday that they would make another effort to pass sweeping health care legislation on their own.
The Grand Old “Party of No” came prepared to a production that Obama’s people thought would make the same idiotic scam look less idiotic (or at least new), but don’t expect the left to retreat from their weak rhetorical position! It’s interesting that the Republican ideas which burst from the ether yesterday have already been deemed incompatible with the Pelosi & Reid definition of bipartisanship. Almost… almost as if the outcome was predetermined.
Throughout 2009 voters grew increasingly disgusted by the dishonest accounting and shameless favoritism Republicans criticized in the House and Senate bills… and Democrats, naturally, blamed the Republicans. Since Boehner et al didn’t have union-boss level access to the legislative process, the only way to do this was by drawing attention away from the awful legislation and towards the angry old white guys fighting ProgressTM.
Then Scott Brown took their seat in Massachusetts, and the leftists in control of Congress were suddenly not so in control. It was time for Obama to dust off a few old saws about bipartisanship, repeat them each a thousand times, and schedule a TV appearance wherein his rapier wit would disarm Republican opposition. That sounded like a good idea to someone, I guess?
Since that didn’t buy them any credibility, it’s RAMMIN’ TIME!
Ms. Pelosi described the steps she had in mind, saying: “What is the substance? That’s what we will be putting together, and we didn’t want to do that before we could hear from our Republican colleagues yesterday. Secondly, what is the Senate able to do with a simple majority? And then we will act upon that.
“I believe that we have good prospects for passing legislation,” said Ms. Pelosi, of California.
I believe you have got to lay off the recreational drugs, Nancy. With all the sugar in the world, it’d take far smoother operators than yourself and Harry Reid to make this medicine go down.
– j. hart Saturday, 02-20-10, 01:12:31pm
Yesterday’s Washington Times has a story from Mark Steyn about the increasing ridiculousness of government regulations, contrasted with America’s refusal to do anything about the threat from Iran:
It is certain that Tehran will get its nukes, and very soon. This is the biggest abdication of responsibility by the Western powers since the 1930s. It is far worse than Pakistan going nuclear, which, after all, was just another thing the CIA failed to see coming. In this case, the slow-motion nuclearization conducted in full view and through years of tortuous diplomatic charades and endlessly rescheduled looming deadlines is not just a victory for Iran but a decisive defeat for the United States. It confirms the Islamo-Sino-Russo-everybody-else diagnosis of Washington as a hollow superpower that no longer has the will or sense of purpose to enforce the global order.
Sure, there are people who insist the Iranian mullahs are saving their oil for later in order to focus a huge portion of their crappy economy on nuclear power. This is based, apparently, on little other than the cute way Iran follows every insane Ahmadinejad rant about nuclear enrichment with a speech by some diplomat about their peaceful intentions.
 Oh, right, like the guy in a $4,00-dollar suit is gonna nuke anyone. COME ON!
So long as there are a few isolationist libertarians and pantywaist liberals insisting Iran’s just trying to keep up with the Joneses and not trying to incinerate the Joneses, Obama and the State Department seem content to mix the occasional harsh word in with their flowery diplomatic rhetoric. That would be totally fine, if dictatorships always meant the peaceful things they said and were only kidding about the violent stuff.
But when you’ve authorized successful mob hits on Salman Rushdie’s publishers and translators, when you’ve blown up Jewish community centers in Buenos Aires, when you’ve acted extraterritorially to the full extent of your abilities for 30 years, it seems prudent for the rest of us to assume that when your abilities go nuclear, you’ll be acting to an even fuller extent.
Read the full Steyn article, and remember that President Obama is busy trying to resurrect a leftist health insurance plan that a majority of Americans don’t want and zero Americans can afford. Foreign policy? He’s already not George W. Bush; what do you people want?!
– j. hart Wednesday, 01-27-10, 08:15:56pm
Good news for anyone thinking about watching President Obama’s first State of the Union address at 9:00pm – you can skip it. How have I reached this conclusion? Obama’s speech will be followed by a Thursday announcement of $8billion in ‘stimulus’ funds being devoted to another idiotic liberal pet project:
President Obama is going to Florida on Thursday to reveal how his administration will divvy up $8 billion in high-speed rail funding, but the good news will whistle all the way up to the Buckeye State, say Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, and Rep Mary Jo Kilroy, D-Columbus.
Passenger rail is wonderful, because it gets citizens into government subsidized trains and out of those terrible, Gaia-killing automobiles. Amtrak has a proven, storied history and should be grown with taxpayer money at every opportunity… except that it doesn’t, and it shouldn’t:
According to a U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) report in December 2004, Amtrak is by far the most heavily subsidized mode of travel in the U.S. Between its huge federal subsidies and its minuscule share of the intercity passenger market (less than 1 percent), Amtrak costs $210.31 per passenger per 1,000 miles, compared to $4.66 for intercity buses and $6.18 for commercial airlines in FY 2002.
Ok, so Amtrak makes a business of suckling at the public teat. But it’s for a good cause! Think of how many citizens will benefit from the several hundred million in pocket change our elected betters want to throw at this project!
An Amtrak study last fall said about 478,000 passengers would ride medium-speed trains connecting Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton and Cincinnati. The line would require about $17 million a year in subsides.
Based on the Amtrak estimate, a number of people less than 5% of Ohio’s population would use the system. 478,000 / 11,485,910 = 4.16%. Senator Sherrod Brown could not be happier with his ability to bring home the bacon:
“This is some of the best news we have had in a long time,” Brown said. “If I put my ear down to the rail I think I hear a train coming.”
If I put my ear down to the rail I think I hear a senator giddy about blowing taxpayer funds on something 95% of Ohioans won’t use. I’m sure it will create enough jobs to be worth $17,000,000 a year in subsidies, because liberals always carefully justify every expenditure.
Brown contends the federal stimulus spending on rail is evidence that the Obama administration wants to spend more on the nation’s infrastructure needs and less on “tax cuts for the rich and the war in Iraq.”
This is extremely encouraging. Put photos of his posterior, a hole in the ground, and a viable business plan in front of the Senator, and he can’t identify a single thing. He can, however, puke up some liberal boilerplate about that horrible George W. Bush cutting taxes and killing terrorists.
– j. hart Monday, 01-25-10, 10:10:05pm
Famous last words:
You always double down on an eleven.
And:
“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office,” Obama said. “People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.“
Massachusetts elected a Republican senator for the first time in decades, after a year of backroom deals and hapless foreign policy from Democrats. Clearly it’s a sign that people still haven’t stopped fuming about that doggone George W. Bush! Of all the ways President Obama could have responded to Scott Brown’s victory, this is the dumbest.
But wait, there’s more! Obama, who has subjected all the galaxy to a nearly constant barrage of his face and voice, needs to communicate more so we understand the things he’s doing for us. To help with that effort, the White House is bringing on Obama ’08 campaign manager David Plouffe. It’ll be just like old times! It’s not at all ridiculous for a leftist empty suit to renew his focus on marketing rather than shifting towards the electorate.
My favorite commentary on President Obama’s reaction to the loss of Ted Kennedy’s seat comes courtesy of Mark Steyn, for the Orange County Register:
Got it. People are so angry and frustrated at George W. Bush that they’re voting for Republicans. In Massachusetts. Boy, I can’t wait for that 159th interview.
Presumably, the president isn’t stupid enough actually to believe what he said. But it’s dispiriting to discover he’s stupid enough to think we’re stupid enough to believe it.
Maybe this touchy whining is a knee-jerk reaction, to be smoothed over by a sleek, centrist State of the Union address on Wednesday. Or maybe I’m a bigger lightweight than I realized, and I’m completely soused after the single High Life I had with dinner.
|


|


|
» comments | back to top «