Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Attention Taxpayers: Rhetoric Not Matching Reality

As Popularity Plummets, Senate Dems Express Concern Over “Wasteful” Spending But Bill Continues To Grow Every Day

FACT BOX
Only 1 Amendment To Reduce The Size Of The Bill Has Received More Than 4 Democrat Votes

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): “[T]he President, the Democratic leaders, the Republican leaders certainly have every intention of moving forward to getting everything out of the bill that causes heartburn to a significant number of senators.” (Sen. Reid, Press Conference, 2/3/09)

SEN. BEN NELSON (D-NE): “I’m very committed to making sure that we get it scrubbed cleaned of many of these programs.” (CNN’s “State Of The Union,” 2/1/09)

SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN): “If there is wasteful or silly spending, or spending that does not, you know, create jobs, that that sort of stuff needs to be pruned out.” (Fox News’ “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” 2/3/09)

SEN. JIM WEBB (D-VA): “People filling up buckets with projects … we found more than $100 billion of items that really don’t meet those [stimulus] criteria.” (MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” 2/5/09)

SEN. ROLAND BURRIS (D-IL): “We are seeking not to let this thing get loaded up with all these other pet projects and pet programs…” (Fox News, 2/4/09)

SEN. KENT CONRAD (D-ND): “I’d have a very hard time voting for this package as it stands.” (CNN’s “Newsroom,” 2/3/09)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): “We’re trying to keep — keep things down.” (Fox News, 2/3/09)

SEN. MARY LANDRIEU (D-LA): “I don’t think this bill is perfect. And it needs some work. It needs some surgery.” (CNBC, 2/2/09)

SEN. JEFF BINGAMAN (D-NM): “Each senator will have the chance to offer amendments on the floor this week, to improve on the proposal, to delete things that they think are inappropriate that are in the proposal. I expect to vote for some of those amendments, because I think there are ways we can improve the proposal.” (MSNBC, 2/2/09)

SEN. KAY HAGAN (D-NC): “‘We have to do things in the right way,’ Hagan said. ‘We cannot be putting debt on the United States’ books in a frivolous way.’” (“Sen. Hagan Settles In,” Greensboro News-Record, 1/11/09)

###

Burning the midnight oil: The Sellout Amendment is here (Michelle Malkin) 

Could it be that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement that chided Senator Coleman only because the current count has Franken winning by a couple of hundred votes? If you listened to all the commentary surrounding the joke in Minnesota you would have heard numerous accounts challenging the integrity of the canvassing board. Some of the reports indicate the decision to use the original or recount totals from various locales suggest a bias in favor of Franken. Perhaps that is what Coleman seeks to rectify in any lawsuit in this matter.
The last line is the best in light of the Burris situation. Reid reminds everyone that Franken is not a Senator yet. So how long will this fiasco continue? In the eyes of Minnesotans Norm Coleman must have really done something special to have a race this close. To make a joke about electing a comedian is one thing. To actually do it or try to do it is quite another. If Franken prevails will he limit his terms like Jesse Ventura? And last but not least, when will the next strange event occur in Minnesota?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

January 5, 2009
Reid Spokesman Statement On Minnesota Senate Race Recount
Washington, DC—Jim Manley, spokesman to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, made the following statement today after the Minnesota State Canvassing Board certified Al Franken as the winner in the state’s Senate race:“Now that the bipartisan state canvassing board has certified Al Franken as the winner, we hope Senator Coleman respects its decision and does not drag this out for months with litigation. Shortly after Election Day, Coleman criticized Mr. Franken for wanting a recount and wasting taxpayer money. Now that it is clear he lost, Coleman should follow his own advice and not subject the people of Minnesota to a costly legal battle.
“However, there will not be an effort to seat Mr. Franken tomorrow.”
###

Congress and the American automobile industry’s CEOs from GM, Ford and Chrysler continue their kabuki dance in Washington. In public view it would appear that politics and business as usual are responsible for avoiding a sensible approach. From concerns about an initial bailout of 25 or more billion taxpayer dollars being offered as an early Christmas present for automakers the latest figure in the press seems to be 15 billion with oversight. Is that the Congressional effort to make the whole thing more palatable to the general public? Lowball the front end offering and when things quiet down hand them more money when no one is looking? Why are the carmakers not being required to use the typical restructuring plan of bankruptcy available to all troubled businesses?

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) stopped just short of advocating bankruptcy for the automakers. His plan concludes with the following statement. “These are the same types of conditions a bankruptcy judge might require to ensure that these companies become viable and sustainable into the future, and if they will agree to these terms then we have something to talk about. The process I have suggested would allow them to avoid the problems and stigma that accompany a formal bankruptcy, while forcing them to do the things they need to do to be successful companies.”

The ‘problems and stigma’ Senator Corker states pale in comparison to the refusal of automakers to accept the fact they have done little to remain competitive over the last few decades. Bankruptcy is exactly the course that should be taken. It requires the same entities who were involved in this failure, the automakers and their creditors, to arrange for salvaging the situation they all contributed to without involving the American taxpayer. The same could be said for other bailouts on the public dime but it is probably too late for that but no reason for allowing the insanity to continue.

Progress made in bailout plan for Big 3 automakers
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS – 6 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional negotiators continue hammering out legislation that would dole out billions to automakers — but promises to yank back the money if a government-run board and overseer decided the companies weren’t taking steps to overhaul themselves.

The plan would draw the emergency aid from an existing loan program meant to help the automakers build fuel-efficient vehicles. The size of the package hasn’t been finalized, but it is expected to be about $15 billion, several congressional aides said.

The unnamed Congressional negotiators and aides as well as the attempt to convince the public their money will be carefully utilized to save the auto industry provide little comfort based on Washington’s track record for decision making to date. It would not be a surprise if the politicians and business ‘leaders’ in this particular scenario employ the time tested tradition of dragging this out until the average citizen loses interest and they have no fear of public outrage to do what they planned from the beginning. Let the public pay for the fiasco. Perhaps that is why they always express concern for the ‘middle class’ as that is the group who shoulders the burden of paying for politics as usual.

Not that the general public shares no responsibility for the current economic problems and the bailout frenzy active in the nation’s capitol but they are not in as strong a position as those who control government and corporate America when it comes to influencing the outcome of public affairs. If the current problems and their implications for the future strength of the American economy are not sufficient to cause the public to change that fact it is likely nothing ever will.

(A Monday report from Reuters suggests a deal may be completed today. Wonderful, just wonderful

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The same pair of politicians responsible for Democratic party leadership in both the House and Senate are at it again. The same two people who blame everything on President Bush and the GOP in general are content to continue with politics as usual even though their brand of leadership has kept the Congressional approval rating in the tank. Did Harry Reid tell Nancy Pelosi to issue a release on December 1st about ‘their’ economic recovery plan or is she so accustomed to repeating herself that it just comes naturally? Regardless of the topic these two always point to the opposition party when things fail. And with their failure rate and lack of public approval the finger pointing is nearly non-stop.

If you had your doubts about whether or not the DNC is socialism in America, the statements by Reid and Pelosi express their intent for government run everything. If that is not socialism, what is? Oh, the economy is in the tank, let the government fix it. Oh, we need more jobs, let the government fix it. We need to wean ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, forget domestic production, let the government fund alternative fuels. And with all this spending on top of what the GOP and Dems allowed over the last years we’ll even promise a tax cut. Yup, drain the treasury bailing out everybody and drive government spending up even more and promise a tax cut. How the hell is all this supposed to work?

Reid’s revelation that we all knew it was a recession before (below) the NBER announced it is not accurate. Given the psychological nature of financial markets it is not unreasonable to suggest the MSM and lefty politicians crying recession helped drive the economy down. A previous post on this blog points to the dubious nature of the NBER and its ‘recession dating’. In reaction to this near self-fulfilling prophecy the Senate Majority Leader and House Speaker suggest government spending to renew ‘confidence’ in the markets. If you believe in psychology for lifting the markets you have to believe in the reverse. So Harry, Nancy, how about it? Did you and your accomplices stress the economy during the 2008 campaign as a two-fold strategy? Make the economy the main issue since you lost the one on the war. While using it in the campaign you hoped your constant lament of how bad things were would wreak havoc on the financial landscape. There ya go. Wreck the economy in an effort to win an election and then spend the nation into oblivion bailing out everything you wrecked in pursuit of the socialist idea of government run everything

It’s almost genius in terms of political strategy but hard to believe it came from the same people who presided over the loser 110th Congress.

December 1, 2008
Reid: Confirmation That U.S. Economy Is In Recession Is Hardly News To American Families

Washington, DC—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid made the following statement today after the National Bureau of Economic Research announced the American economy has been in recession since December 2007:

“To American families struggling every day, today’s announcement that we have been in a recession for the past year is hardly news. The announcement simply makes official what we have long known – with rising costs of living, rising unemployment, record foreclosures and depleted savings, we must do more to help families make ends meet. Those efforts must include a substantial economic recovery package that creates good-paying jobs here in America, cuts taxes for the middle class and instills confidence to stabilize a volatile market. With the cooperation of our Republican colleagues, we intend to send a plan to the White House as soon as possible following President-elect Obama’s inauguration next month.”

###

12/01/2008
Pelosi: Economic Report a Clear Signal for Republicans to Drop Opposition to Economic Recovery Package

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement today in reaction to the National Bureau of Economic Research’s announcement that the American economy entered recession in December 2007.

“Today’s report from the National Bureau of Economic Research comes as no surprise to America’s families and underscores the need for immediate, bipartisan action to create jobs and get America moving again.

“The report is a clear signal to President Bush and Senate Republicans to drop their opposition to the House-passed economic recovery package that will help lift our economy and begin creating jobs again.

“Congress will continue our commitment to new jobs and opportunity by working with President-elect Obama to enact bold economic recovery and job creation legislation in January that will cut taxes, invest in a cleaner and independent energy future, rebuild and modernize schools, roads, and bridges, and expand 21st century communications and energy infrastructure across the nation.”

11/26/2008
Pelosi: Economic News Makes Clear President Must Drop Opposition to House-Passed Recovery Package

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi today issued the following statement in reaction to the latest economic news that 529,000 Americans filed for jobless claims last week, consumer spending declined by 1% in October and the number of Americans on food stamps could exceed 30 million for the first time.

“The latest economic news makes clear that President Bush and Senate Republicans must drop their opposition to the House-passed economic recovery legislation that would provide a down payment on creating jobs, helping states avoid deep cuts to health care and essential services, and deliver emergency nutrition assistance to struggling families. Democrats again call on President Bush and Senate Republicans to work with us to enact this legislation in December.

“Congress will continue to work with President-elect Obama on bold economic recovery and job creation legislation that will cut taxes, invest in a cleaner energy future, and rebuild schools, roads and bridges. The 111th Congress will act immediately on this legislation to restore consumer and market confidence and ensure America’s global competitiveness.”

Boehner Statement on the National Bureau of Economic Research Announcement that the U.S. Economy is in a Recession

Washington, Dec 1 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement on the announcement by the National Bureau of Economic Research that the U.S. economy has been in recession since December 2007:

“The economic scorekeepers at the National Bureau of Economic Research have now confirmed what working families and small businesses have known for quite a while: the United States is in a recession. Clearly, we need to respond, but the American people know that the answer to this challenge is not out-dated policies that do nothing but increase Washington spending. We need a real plan that puts the American people – not bureaucrats – first. Congress should enact an economic growth plan that would double the child tax credit, suspend the capital gains tax to help people rebuild their 401(k)s, reduce tax rates that drive businesses overseas, stop unnecessary lawsuits that destroy jobs, and create a million new jobs by developing America’s energy resources. I look forward to working with the new President and his economic team as we confront this serious situation.”

NOTE: To respond to the economic downturn, Boehner has introduced a Rapid Recovery Plan for economic growth that emphasizes pro-growth policies such as energy reforms that would create one million new jobs, stronger 401(k)s, and tax relief rather than new government spending.

#####

There is the argument that when Reagan took office as President with a dismal economic situation his tax cuts raised government revenue and stimulated the economy to a point rarely seen in the past. House Minority Leader John Boehner seems to be playing on that theme with the same regularity that the Dems express their stand on the issue. With the exception of the lawsuit item his comments are reasonable based on past experience. But rather than publish press releases both parties should restrict most of this debate to meetings between Congressional leaders and committee members with the sole purpose of finding effective solutions and stop wasting time.

There is little point in politicians invoking typical expressions of gridlock or politics as usual or bipartisan or hope or change. The best chance for restoring confidence in the markets and helping Americans through tough economic times is for Washington politicians not to make things worse. Action from Washington is more often a hindrance than a help. Just throwing taxpayer money at problems is not the answer. Similar to problems faced by the public at large and private sector enterprise the government needs to get their own house in order. Stop talking about doing things differently and let results speak for themselves. If those in Washington perform effectively their will be no need for politics as usual and the rest of what disgusts Americans about our government. Now the question is, are they up to the task. History would suggest that is not the case.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

To support our troops and all those who serve in uniform it is necessary as ordinary citizens to participate in the process that ultimately affects how well the nation serves those who serve it. While reviewing various sources for items related to Veteran’s Day two instances feature public response to the topic from the leaders of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress. Below are the press releases from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Minrity Leader John Boehner.

Pelosi Statement on Veterans Day

For Immediate Release
11/10/2008

Washington, D.C. – Speaker Nancy Pelosi released the following statement on the occasion of Veterans Day, which will be celebrated tomorrow:

“On Veterans Day, Americans across our great nation come together to honor the brave men and women who wore our nation’s uniform, to remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and to pay special tribute to those serving in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the globe. Without the brave efforts of all the soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines, and coastguardsmen, none of us would live as free or be able enjoy the blessings of liberty.

“The New Direction Congress treats every day as if it were Veterans Day, as we work to strengthen our military and ensure that our troops have the tools they need to complete their mission safely and the benefits and health care they were promised once they return home.

“In the last two years, we provided more resources to care for American veterans than was done in the previous 12 years combined—including the single largest increase in veterans’ health care funding in the 77-year history of the VA. We also helped make the heroes of Iraq and Afghanistan part of a new American economic recovery—just like after World War II—by restoring the GI Bill’s promise of a four-year college scholarship.

“Our pledge to meet the needs of our veterans is about redeeming a promise made by an American president long ago in the midst of our nation’s bloodiest war. In his Second Inaugural Address, President Lincoln promised that our nation would “…care for him who shall have borne the battle, his widow, and his orphan…” We are keeping that promise to America’s veterans.

“On the battlefield, the military pledges to leave no soldier behind. As a nation, let it be our pledge that when they return home, we leave no veteran behind. On this Veterans Day, let us all pause to thank our men and women in uniform—both past and present—and to say a prayer for those serving today that they may return safely home.”

First of all let it be said here that in all likelihood Speaker Pelosi sincerely appreciates the contribution and sacrifice provided by members of the armed services. It is also a matter of public record that she has opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has taken it upon herself to visit places like Syria as a self-proclaimed diplomat for political reasons in opposition to President Bush. The Democratic party and their alliances with organizations like MoveOn and other anitwar, perhaps anti-American activists and the far left insulted General Petraeus as well as the service of heroes like John McCain and others. That sentiment is present in her press release above with her repeated mention of ‘return home’ which has become her not so subtle call for surrender and appeasement in light of the success of the troop surge which stilled the storm attempted by her antiwar base. Let’s see how supportive she is on veterans’ issues beyond the political rhetoric and minimally effective legislation along with her routine criticism of the opposition party and claim of innocence for her own. A little public oversight and interrogation of her is in order.

Boehner Statement Honoring Our Nation’s Veterans

Washington, Nov 11 - House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement honoring our nation’s veterans:

“As the United States begins another peaceful transition of power from one President to another, we are once again reminded of how truly fortunate we are to live in a nation where such a monumental task seems so routine. On this Veterans’ Day, we take the time to remember and thank those who have made this and all of democracy’s gifts possible. The men and women who have proudly and selflessly served our nation in uniform – and those currently protecting us here at home and overseas – can look upon the events of the next 10 weeks and know that they have had a stake in preserving and defending the oldest and greatest democracy on Earth. We are in their debt, and we express our gratitude to them, and those who came before them, on this special day.”

#####

House Minority Leader John Boehner was smart enough to avoid any direct links to the state of veterans’ affairs in his press release. That does not let him off the hook for responsibility in these matters any more than it would Nancy Pelosi. But at least he did not mar the observance of Veteran’s Day with political rhetoric. It is again worthwhile to note that the current peaceful transfer of power from one Preisdent to another is also an outcome preserved by the service of veterans to this nation’si ideals. From Minority Leader Boehner on this special occasion, enough said.

In the days or months to come there will be reports of how effective or ineffective inquiries to the above members of Congress were regarding veterans affairs. This would be the blog author’s gesture to honor Veteran’s Day by advocating for proper treatment of veterans to honor their service in addition to a special day which commemorates that service.

Reid Statement On Veterans Day

November 10, 2008

Washington, D.C. – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement to commemorate Veterans Day, Tuesday, November 11:

“Since America’s earliest days, brave men and women have put their lives on the line to protect our nation, its citizens and their freedom. This Veterans Day, we honor the service and sacrifice of America’s veterans and pause to thank those defending us throughout the world today.

“As our country continues to fight wars on multiple fronts and a new generation of soldiers becomes the next generation of veterans, we must renew our promise to our troops that we ensure they receive all the support and benefits they have earned.

“I look forward to working with President-elect Obama and my colleagues in Congress to fulfill our obligation to our military men and women who have dedicated their lives to our great nation.”

###

Surprisingly, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s press release for Veteran’s Day touches on this blog’s specific point on veteran’s issues. Also surprising is at GOP Republican Senate dot gov there is no PR from McConnell on this topic. At his own Senate site is only a PR on $75 million he scored for a KY Vet’s Hospital. This too will require further explanation. But the bottom line is not primarily what public statements are available but what is actually being done to serve veterans. More on all this later.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

To some degree, to the victor go the spoils. No one should worry too much about committee membership in Congress if the Democratic majority would reach 60 Senate seats. A supermajority in the upper house of Congress would probably make committee membership a moot point. But for any majority below that losing membership on the committees or playing any sort of musical chairs will certainly influence legislation over at least the next couple of years.

Senator Harry Reid makes it all sound so fair by referring to the numbers/ratios in the 103rd Congress. That’s nice, Harry, but who is going to believe this is anything more than the transfer of power being peaceful in terms of no coup d’etat but potentially violent in terms of its effects on American citizens? Oh yes, members of the Democratic party and their supporters have been heard embracing the election outcome as a ‘mandate’ for change or hope for ‘working families’ or whatever.

While a mandate may be the granting of permission to those elected with a substantial margin of victory the right to establish policies there may be some difference of opinion on what that includes or permits even among those who support the newly elected representatives. The current example would be those of a liberal persuasion urging elected Democrats to move hard to the left versus those suggesting a middle ground.

The Democrats as well as some Republicans have a tendency to refer to the people they represent or are currently working for as ‘middle class’ or ‘working families’ as alluded to above. That is bothersome. Some are elected at the local level and represent a local constituency. Similar situations apply to those at the state and national level with broader coverage for the citizens they directly represent. Especially at the national level but to some degree at all levels elected representation should be concerned about all the people. You represent Americans and you represent all of them. One thing this historic election should have made clear if anyone was unsure. Why don’t you try stating what your objectives are and attend to the affairs of government for all the people.

For instance, if you say you are doing something for working families what does that tell those who are unemployed? If you do something for the middle class at the expense of others what does that say about your solution? For years it was typical to hear people lament that Republicans favored the rich and Democrats favored the poor. Maybe the rich and poor should not be used as political footballs to justify your questionable policies and legislation, mandate or no mandate.

You can be as successful as you want if you don’t care who gets the credit. If you want Barack Obama to be successful, for once, go to Washington and get some work done that benefits everyone and not just the flavor of the month.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Reid looks to chop Republican committee seats
By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 11/08/08 01:32 PM [ET]

Senate Democratic leaders plan to cut Republican committee seats to reflect the new balance of power in the upper chamber, according to Democratic aides.

Republicans will lose at least one seat on most committees and may lose as many as two on some of the larger panels, such as the powerful Appropriations committee.

One aide said that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will likely follow the model set at the start of the 103rd Congress, when Democrats held a 57-seat Senate majority, the same margin they are expected to hold when the results of the election become final. The aide said leaders are not likely to add Democratic seats to achieve the proper ratios.

Try as it will the NYT fish wrap continues to bias its reporting in support of Obama but cannot do it effectively as even the Obama camp lowers expectations. With taxpayer interest groups favoring McCain over Obama and Joe Biden lowering the $250K target for those getting tax breaks to $150K and now the NYT lowering the threshhold to $100K the house of cards of Obama on taxes is simply a joke.

Calling the analysis of tax plans ‘independent’ does not make it so. The Tax Policy Center, The Urban Institute as well as the Brookings Institution are not necessarily non-partisan and independent.

When the abstract alone of the candidate tax plans describes them as poor or poorly targeted a closer look would be needed to find support for the NYT claim that Obama’s plan is better for anyone. In the excerpt below one caveat comes from the NYT’s own description that ‘Mr Obama would GENERALLY cut taxes more’ and leaves one with the feeling someone is splitting hairs on this appraisal. And where does the so-called independent analysis state those under $250K would not see a tax increase? And this doesn’t even come close to explaining where Obama gets the money to pay for his trillion dollar spending proposal. Gouging the small group of wealthy citizens who pay the lion’s share of taxes in this country won’t cover it.

Already stated, the most important feature of the Obama tax cutting claim is two-fold. The campaign started with a $250K threshhold, lowered it to $150K and their biggest media friend only allows a $100k threshhold to promote the plan. Secondly, for Obama to have any chance at an agenda if elected he has to contend with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and company. Without their support he doesn’t stand a chance and may not even care if his campaign promises are torpedoed by other Democrats. It would let him off the hook. He could simply say, gee, I tried but Harry and Nancy wouldn’t let me. Just like Kennedy told Hillary she couldn’t play, he was choosing Obama along with the remainder of the DNC elite and the main stream media.

This is another reason to vote for McCain/Palin

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

For Incomes Below $100,000, a Better Tax Break in Obama’s Plan
By STEVEN GREENHOUSE
Published: October 30, 2008

Independent analyses of the presidential candidates’ tax proposals show that those who make less than $250,000 a year would not see their taxes raised under Senator Barack Obama’s plans. Further, Mr. Obama would generally cut taxes more than Senator John McCain would for households with incomes less than $100,000 a year.

Sound bites, shifting positions, the search for political cover and more delays from Washington which may prove to be the best medicine for for the so-called financial crisis. One quote from John McCain offered by the press relates to the need for the government to do something.

“This is something that all of us will swallow hard and go forward with,” McCain said on ABC’s “This Week.” “The option of doing nothing is simply not an acceptable option.”

The same goes for a quote from Barack Obama on Face the Nation last Sunday. “My inclination is to support it,” said Obama…”While I look forward to reviewing the language of the legislation, it appears that the tentative deal embraces these principles.” What principles? Oh is doesn’t matter. There are more sound bites and reports to muddy the water. But Obama’s ‘inclination’ is what may best describe Obama, unsure on most things. The Reuters’ source for these quotes had this title, ‘McCain, Obama tentatively support bailout plan.’ .

McCain said he had urged Bush in a morning call to use the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund to expand the financial services it guarantees beyond money market accounts. He also said he urged Bush to require the Treasury use its roughly trillion-dollar authority to shore up mortgage values. This is a little more to the point and shows McCain wants taxpayer bank deposits, etc., protected and to keep property values from free falling. But the USA Today’s report excerpt is not a quote. It is the paper interpreting what McCain said. The only quotes in the piece say nothing like what is stated above. The McCain quotes offered mostly speak in generalities while the only specifics express a desire to raise FDIC insurance which both McCain and Obama support. Perhaps that is what the title ‘McCain urges Bush action on crisis‘ really means rather than what it suggests and what USA Today interprets from thin air.

RENO, Nev. (AP) — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama is calling for Americans to get behind attempts to salvage a $700 billion rescue plan for the financial sector.

Not to provide any cover for Barack Obama but no where in the brief AP report referenced above is there a quote from Obama saying anything like what is in the excerpt shown here. The MSM is helping the Democratic party in their search for political cover for complicity in the subprime mortgage mess which people are now calling the financial crisis, meltdown or biggest disaster since the Great Depression.

And headlines or titles from both Google and CNN in the next piece also cloud the issues. ‘McCain, Obama: Raise deposit insurance to $250000′ while true, Google, is not the title of the piece at CNN to which your link points.

McCain, Obama: Raise deposit insurance to $250000
CNN - 4 hours ago
(CNN) — The $700 billion economic rescue plan failed in the House of Representatives because people don’t think it will do anything for them, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain told CNN’s “American Morning…..

And CNN’s title to their report is misleading as well. McCain: I ‘may fail,’ but Congress has to ‘get the job done’ Later in the piece a more complete quote from McCain is presented. “But if I think I can do some good, I’ll do it. I may fail a first or second or third time, but we have to get this job done for America.”

No where have these reports shown what they are trying to claim. That Senator John McCain supports the 700 billion boondoggle.is not accurate. He supports action, he supports, as does Obama, of raising FDIC insurance coverage and what needs to be done to repair the damage done by the subprime mortgage failures.

Here’s a view for you. Who is responsible for allowing the bank deregulation? The 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act broke down barriers between banks, securities firms, mortgage lenders and insurance companies. That deregulation repealed Great Depression-era bank regulations with the approval of former president Bill Clinton.

The House version of the bill was passed by 205 Republicans and 138 Democrats. The Senate bill was passed on a party line vote with Republicans voting yes and Democrats voting no. President Bill Clinton signed the bill into law.

As posted here earlier Senator Chuck Hagel and Senator Elizabeth Dole, both on the Senate Banking Committee as well as co-sponsor Senator John McCain offered a bill to correct problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, etc., and the bill died in their own committee. That was 2005. Senator Dodd is on the committee and has been Chairman since the Democratic majority was won in the 2006 midterms. He gets lots of money from banking interests as well as other members of Congress. How is it that not until the subprime mortgage mess exploded in the markets his chairmanship and the complicity of many other Democrats with Fannie and Freddie has not been front and center in the discussion?

The Community Reinvestment Act while not in itself a root cause to the subprime mess had its effect on the problem. Having banks lend money in areas from which they receive deposits, including low income areas, is a good thing. The Dems signed on as it is right up their alley in terms of their claim to champion the little guy and help the less fortunate. So Fannie and Freddie begin increasing their involvement with low income lending. Over the years money flowed to Dems from Fannie and Freddie, more loans were packaged and as the real estate market bubbled and prices rose dramatically. When the classic good credit market was saturated, deregulated banks, Fannie and Freddie and others expanded whom they would lend to and reduced minimums to cover just about everyone. And the money kept pouring into the Dems wallets. While everyone looked the other way and got fat and happy the bubble burst.

So now who isn’t holding bad paper? Who is too big to fail? How is all this going to be paid for? Can Dems get political cover by convincing the GOP to vote with them?

Is there enough blame to go around? Certainly, there always is. But the Dems are backing the 700 billion boondoggle or as Michelle Malkin calls it, crap sandwich, and most Republicans are not in favor of it. 2/3 of the GOP voted against the bill this week. A surprising number of Dems voted against it. But a boat load of Dems and one third of the GOP in the House voted for it. Barney wants it. Chris wants it. Harry wants it. Nancy wants it. And go figure, GeeDubya wants it.

The Democratic party and their New Direction for America won the majority in Congress in November 2006. Their candidate for President, Barack Obama was firmly connected to ACORN. Beyond voter fraud, ‘community organizing’ and ACORN have a vested interest in the subprime mess. Dems in general have a vested interest in outfits like Fannie and Freddie. Chris Dodd and the Banking Committee had their chance since 2006 and before to head off this problem. And now they want you to do it for them.

So to whom does the majority of the subprime mess blame belong. You guessed it, the Democratic majority in Congress whose New Direction for America had plenty of opportunity to avoid the problem and did nothing.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Hey, Harry Reid, IS THAT ALL YOU GOT? Hope and change and four more years is all the Dems can muster. They have to hope since the New Direction for America was introduced after the 2006 midterms has been a complete failure as reflected in the tank bottoming DISapproval rating of the Democratic Congress. And since no change has been demonstrated from Democratic Party politics as usual all they have left is the lame slogan of four more years.

The real reason Harry Reid objected to Palin’s comment is he has to do it. That’s understandable. Using a spokesperson to deliver the message in this case seems to prove the point for Palin. That aside, Reid is most likely really angry because the ‘people’ are claiming they want change. So they dress their rock star Obama in the ‘change agent’ wardrobe. Problem is when did he ever act in opposition to his own party? Harry Reid knows that the only ones who have are the GOP candidates. And the only Democrat to regularly oppose his party’s direction is Joe Lieberman. He was on the short list for GOP VP and now that Palin is the pick, you have three, including John McCain who are the only people in this year’s election with demonstarted ability to abandon party politics to get the job done.

And not one of them is named Barack Obama or Joe Biden. Poor Harry, he knows he’s in for another rough season. The midterm successes for the Dems only resulted in the lowest approval rating for Congress since the rocks cooled. The New Direction for America was a complete failure. The first woman Speaker of the House has been an equally disappointing situation for the Dems. And even the hurricane that Fowler and Moore touted as proof God was on the Dems side failed to deliver for them. So much for God being on your side.

So for the Dems as demonstrated by this recent communication from Harry Reid’s office the idea is to keep throwing enough, you know, at the wall and ‘hope’ something sticks. Why not, nothing else is working for them.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Palin Attacks Reid And Reid’s Office Responds

By Martin Kady II Sep 4, 2008

Here’s Reid spokesman Jim Manley’s response, sent to Politico a few minutes ago:

“Anyone who knows Sen. Reid knows he never backs down when he’s fighting for what’s right and that he always stands up to John McCain when he is wrong,” Manley said. “Shrill and sarcastic political attacks may fire up the Republican base, but they don’t change the fact that a McCain-Palin administration would mean four more years of failed Bush-Cheney policies.”

(The reference above was posted on CBS as it was not found on Politico’s website)

Liberal men in a panic; Update: liberal women spinning, too (Michelle Malkin)

The following is ‘Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal’ as described at the source website

In which my disgust with the Democratic Party grows

Category: Politics • Religion
Posted on: August 22, 2008 11:22 AM, by PZ Myers

I just received this email from some communications group trying to publicize the virtues of the Democratic Party. It had the opposite effect on me. I am appalled. It’s the usual Democratic strategic inanity of pushing to ape the Republicans instead of even trying to be a party of progressive ideas, so they’re going to promote futile religious bullshit at their convention. This just makes me furious.

DEMOCRATIC CONVENTION TO HIGHLIGHT DIVERSE COMMUNITY OF FAITH LEADERS WORKING TOWARD COMMON GOOD…..

Apparently the excerpt from the post above is in response to the latest development in liberal politics. The Dems obviously are reacting to the Saddleback event and their concerns that they cannot win the Presidential election without votes from a segment of the population they revile, sometimes to referred to as Evangelicals or the Religious Right. Is this their plan?

from WaPo….

Young Evangelical Backs Out of Giving Convention Opening Prayer

By Krissah Williams Thompson
The relationship Democrats are trying to forge with the faith community at their convention next week took a hit when a popular young evangelical backed out of their Monday night program.

Cameron Strang, the 30-something editor of Relevant, a hip magazine about faith and culture, said on his blog that he has changed his mind about delivering the opening night convention prayer because he does not want to be seen as endorsing Sen. Barack Obama. Strang will still attend the convention, however, where he will speak on a panel.

So the Dems are trying to get religion. How transparent is this cheap political ploy? Probably about the same as the rest of the liberal strategy. Doing their own Obama-like world tour to visit state sponsors of terror with gestures of appeasement did not work. Trying to surrender in Iraq and Afghanistan did not work. Trying to deny the American public of domestic oil production is not working. In short their last subsititute for their typical ‘hope and change’ mantra, ‘A New Direction for America’ is not working at all. Talk about a lost cause looking for someone to throw them a bone.

The liberal at the top of the page may want to consider, based on his posted CV, that a better notion than the Dems promoting ‘progressive ideas’ would be to simply pursue solutions that most people can support. Practical notions minus some of the political baggage from party politics is something that might get more mileage than touting party ideology all the time. Instead of doing that, in this case, the Dems will try to convince us they got religion. Being a godless liberal, no wonder he’s upset.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Trackposted to Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, third world county, Dumb Ox Daily News, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe

On Friday night, December 21, 2007 the News Hour on PBS had the public suffer through an excessively long interview with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The only humor injected in this conversation came at the very beginning when Reid was introduced and when ‘welcomed’ to the broadcast replied, ‘thank you for allowing me on..’

TRANSCRIPT
Originally Aired: December 21, 2007
Newsmaker Interview

Senate Majority Leader Reid Weighs Partisan Divides, Security in Iraq

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., discusses how partisan differences have impacted the pace of recent legislative progress on Capitol Hill, the state of the Iraq war and the next steps for the Democratic-led Congress in an interview with Ray Suarez.
Senator Harry Reid

audioRealAudio
Download

JIM LEHRER: Now, our Newsmaker interview with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada. And to Ray Suarez.

RAY SUAREZ: Senator Reid, welcome to the program.

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV), Senate Majority Leader: Thank you very much for allowing me to be on your show.

If you have a tendency toward conspiracy theories you could surmise the interview was prompted by Reid. But that can’t be. After all, this is journalism in America. Subjects of an interview don’t influence their selection. Besides the lame inquiry opening the interview pointing to the pathetic performance of the majority, Reid often repeated his claim that the minority blocked Democratic party initiatives 62 times and that it was some kind of record. His claim that the Democratic party supports the troops with their failed surrender strategy may also have annoyed viewers.

But the left’s amnesty agenda masquerading as immigration reform is the topic of this post. It is reasonable to note that those supporting the rule of law and opposing amnesty are not the only ones on the planet displeased by the fantasy of the ‘global economy’. Offshore outsourcing and the importation of cheap labor are trends that only serve the corporate boardroom. The following reference from 2004 adequately addresses a typical sham of the ‘global’ propaganda.

Workers asked to train foreign replacements
By Stephanie Armour, USA TODAY
4/6/2004

When computer programmer Stephen Gentry learned last year that Boeing was laying him off and shipping his job overseas, he wasn’t too surprised. Many of his friends had suffered the same experience.

What really stunned him was his last assignment: Managers had him train the worker from India who’d be taking his job.

“It was very callous,” says Gentry, 51, of Auburn, Wash., a father of three who is still unemployed. “They asked us to make them feel at home while we trained them to take our jobs.”

The report below from VOA News echoes a sentiment often employed by those who support amnesty for illegal immigrants in the United States. The emotional appeal employed to embarrass or insult opponents of amnesty for illegal immigrants at best succeeds with the latter outcome. That illegals are only here in pursuit of a job or better life and that the US is a nation of immigrants ignores much about the past and ignores other American traditions; not the least of which is playing by the rules.

The situation in Britain mirrors some characteristics of the US problem. They have organized opposition to their immigration problem and a member states the situation only benefits the few. The similarities lend support to the notion that those supporting unreasonable immigration policies do so for personal gain and not the altruistic reasons often claimed in support of the pursuit of bigger profits at the expense of the people and country that made their financial success possible.

British Unease Grows with Foreign Workers
By Sonja Pace
London
21 December 2007

Pace report - Download MP3 (913k)
Listen to Pace report

The British government is set to announce a series of measures early next year to tighten restrictions on immigrant workers. A booming economy has attracted foreigners to Britain from many parts of the world in recent years, especially from the new members of the European Union, but also from the United States, Asia and Africa. While many provide a crucial source of labor, their arrival has also sparked an uneasy debate in Britain over a growing migrant work force. VOA’s Sonja Pace has more from London.

The building boom in Britain may be driven by a strong economy, but the work is carried out largely by foreigners.

British government statistics indicate that more than 2.5 million foreign workers have registered in Britain since 2002.

The largest single group of legal migrants has come from Poland. Zbigniew Cwik is one of them. He says when he first came here life was difficult, without his family and long hours.

“The work was from morning to evening so I am just thinking about the work,” he said.

He goes by Zibbi, for short. He originally came on a training course, stayed, found work doing construction and home refurbishments, brought his family over and eventually started his own business.

Many of the newcomers from parts of Europe arrive here by bus, hoping to find a job and a better life. More than 220,000 Polish workers have registered in Britain in the past year. And, in all, some 700,000 East European workers have come here since the 2004 EU expansion, which opened avenues for them to work in Britain legally.

Hugo Brady of the Center for European Reform says migrant workers are behind Britain’s economic boom.

“Really, immigration in this sense as per the 2004 enlargement has been a win-win situation. I can’t think of any situation in Europe in which it has not been beneficial,” he said.

While some work in highly skilled jobs, most migrants do not. They work in construction, in agriculture - they build roads, sweep streets, clean houses, tend gardens and take care of other people’s children.

And, not everyone is pleased with the influx. The chairman of the lobby group, Migration Watch UK, Andrew Green says the migrant workforce benefits only a few.

“Polish immigration is great news for the chattering classes, because you get cheap nannies, you get cheap restaurants, you get wonderful gardeners and the plumbers are wonderful,” he said. “If you happen to be a British plumber it’s not so good.”

Migration Watch wants tougher immigration limits.

“We’ve got a million young [British] people who are not in education, not in training, not in work,” he added. “Now it’s even more difficult to get those people into the work force if you’ve got literally hundreds of thousands of bright, young Poles ready to do the job.”

But, Britain also hosts migrants from non-EU states, including from the United States, Asia and Africa. The government is now set to further tighten immigration rules with an Australian-style system for restricting immigration to those with skills the country needs.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown said this new point system would help manage the immigration flow.

“This is probably the biggest change in our immigration rules that has been seen for many decades,” he said. “It is precisely to encourage the skills that we need as a country and to discourage the skills we don’t need.”

And so the debate goes on. How many migrants should be allowed in, how long should they stay, do they benefit the economy or do they take jobs away from locals?

Hugo Brady with the Center for European Reform says there is another factor.

“People will always fear the ‘other’ and they don’t like the idea of strangers descending on them even if it is a good thing, even if they themselves have benefited from it,” he added. “Somehow this prejudice remains.”

For the migrants who come here, the priority is to make a better life for themselves and their families. Some plan to return home, others are not so sure.

For Britons, the issue remains an ongoing debate.

By Deborah Tate
Capitol Hill

Tate report - Download MP3 (1424k)
Listen to Tate report

Democrats took control of Congress for the first time in 12 years in 2007, promising to fulfill an ambitious legislative agenda and to change the course of the unpopular war in Iraq. They conclude the year accomplishing few of their key priorities, including affecting the course of the war. VOA’s Deborah Tate reports from Capitol Hill.

President Bush offered his assessment of the Democratic-led Congress at a recent appearance with reporters.

“The end of 2007 is approaching fast, and the new Congress has little to show for it,” said President Bush.

The American people appear frustrated with Congress, too. A recent New York Times/CBS News poll finds that only 21 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Congress, with 64 percent disapproving.

Congressional Democrats and Republicans acknowledge they haven’t accomplished as much as they would have liked, and are blaming each other.

Republicans say Democrats refuse to compromise. Senator John Cornyn is a Texas Republican:

“When one side or the other tries to jam their agenda down the throats of the other side, it does not work,” said Senator Cornyn. “Exhibit A [the example] is the dismal record of this broken Congress during this last year.”

But Democrats say Senate Republicans are to blame, calling them obstructionists. Under Senate rules, the minority can block legislation using procedural tactics. Sixty votes are needed to overcome such tactics, known as filibusters, but Democrats only hold a 51 to 49 seat majority.

Senator Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, says Republicans’ use of the tactics has neared record levels, and predicts they will pay politically in congressional election less than a year from now.

“They are filibustering themselves out of their seats next November,” said Senator Schumer. “The American people dramatically want change. Every time they stop the wheels of progress, every time they stop us from doing things that America wants, they are hurting the country.”

Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada blames President Bush for his unwillingness to compromise.

“President Bush reminds me of somebody who was a lawyer, who would never negotiate anything, a nice guy, pleasant to visit with, but he was impossible to deal with on any case that he had,” said Senator Reid. “That is what we have with President Bush. He is impossible, and he has been for seven years, to deal with.”

But President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress defend their strategy, saying they are stopping Democrats from legislating on matters that are not in Americans’ best interest.

Despite much partisan wrangling, lawmakers did manage to accomplish several modest achievements - including approving measures to improve homeland security as recommended by the commission that investigated the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the United States. In addition, Congress overrode a presidential veto on a bill to restore the hurricane-ravaged Gulf Coast, and reformed congressional ethics and lobbying rules.

Democrats were not as successful in overriding vetoes of popular legislation to deliver health care to children of low-income families and expand stem cell research to help cure diseases.

But more importantly, Democrats failed to make good on key priorities, including reforming the nation’s immigration system and setting a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

Democrats, who were elected to the majority in large part as a result of Americans’ dissatisfaction with the course of the war, are especially disappointed that they were not able to push through a withdrawal timeline, despite dozens of attempts. They abandoned the effort in the waning weeks of the congressional session.

One political analyst says the reason the Democrats’ had trouble making good on their vow to change the course of the war is in large part the influence that the president wields - even as his second term in office winds down.

Ross Baker, a political science professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey:

“The inability of Congress to pass any kind of legislation limiting the American role in Iraq was a reflection of the fact that the president would veto anything that Congress passed that imposed any kind of limitation on him,” said Ross Baker. “The fact that the Democrats have withdrawn all such efforts is an indication of the power of even a weakened president in his final year in office to play a very commanding role in what gets done on Capitol Hill.”

Baker also says changing circumstances on the ground in Iraq played a role in the Democrats’ inability to get a withdrawal timetable approved. He says President Bush’s decision to increase the number of troops in Iraq helped tamp down violence, which in turn, helped reduce the number of U.S. casualties.

“As that number has gone down I think the place of Iraq on the agenda of American people has gone down, and a great deal of the anger and frustration has dissipated,” he said. “That could change if things get worse, and they easily could. But that certainly is a major element in the inability of the Democrats to get the votes they need.”

Members of the Democratic Party’s liberal base are angry that their party’s majority in Congress has not been able to set a timetable for withdrawal. Democratic leaders are vowing to try again next year.

Senator Carl Levin is a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee:

“The effort is not over,” said Senator Levin. “We may not be able to get the votes, but we are going to keep on trying. I think we are duty-bound to see if we can get some kind of timetable in place.”

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat of California sought to accentuate the positive, suggesting that a timetable for a troop withdrawal from Iraq and other agenda items that did not pass this year could be approved if more Democrats are elected next year.

“We signaled change,” said e Nancy Pelosi. “We made a difference. And now we are showing that in order to get much more of this done - we can some of it done this year, but we need a Democratic president and we need stronger majorities in the House and Senate.”

All 435 House seats and 35 of the 100 Senate seats will be on the ballot in November’s elections.

In her own words and as of this writing still published on speaker.house.gov, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi documents, for all to see, her long standing and steadfast support for the Democratic party’s surrender agenda as well as other failed initiatives that provide nothing positive for the United States of America.

In addition to the failure of a 100 hour, day, month, lifetime, whatever legislative agenda her promise to drain the swamp and end the culure of corruption in Washington which she blamed entirely on the GOP has not been honored. The leading Democratic party Presidential candidate has since embraced lobbyists as real Americans and been shown to accept campaign contributions from numerous criminals with no intervention from Pelosi or her party. The swamp endures.

With a press release title like, ‘Pelosi: Bush and His Republican Allies Are Preventing Extra Funds from Reaching Our Troops’, Nancy Pelosi continues to adhere to her surrender strategy even after the Congressional approval rating has fallen to the lowest level in many years. There is no evidence to support her claim that the American people desire surrender. To attempt to shift the blame for not providing timely appropriations to the troops on President Bush is as shameless a tactic as her surrender strategy which this latest ploy supports.

Here is a review of the surrender strategy of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and friends:

source: speaker.house.gov
11/21/2006
“The war in Iraq is one of the most critical issues confronting our nation, and the American people have clearly called for a New Direction in Iraq,” Pelosi said. “We know that ‘stay the course’ is not working, has not made our country safer, has not honored the commitment to our troops, and has not brought stability to the region. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished group of experts as House Democrats discuss the deteriorating situation in Iraq.”

Apparently Nancy Pelosi only considers the like minded far left fringe as ‘the American people’. Anyone who supports the troops and their mission for victory in Iraq is not included by Pelosi since they oppose surrender.

source: speaker.house.gov
12/05/2006
“We predicated some of the conversation in a letter that Senator Reid, myself and others in the leadership sent to the President on October 20. At that time, we reiterated our concern that ‘stay the course’ was not a strategy, but a slogan. We urged the President to work with us in a bipartisan way and we presented four changes to current policy: first, redeployment and transition of our troops out of Iraq; second, disarm the militia; third, have an international conference to discuss with the countries in the region the stability and reconstruction of the region, especially Iraq; and fourth, to amend the constitution to relieve some of the civil strife and to spread some of the political advantages that the elections there promised.

The last two excerpts are from just after the 2006 midterm elections. From the beginning the Democrats as stated by Pelosi above have steadfastly supported surrender in Iraq. Their first of the four misguided policies above calls for ‘redeployment and transition out of Iraq which is plainly surrender. That is followed by a near impossible task after a suggested surrender, an appeasement and unnecessary meddling in Iraqi affairs after departure. But that is the way of the Democratic party, now and in the past.

source: speaker.house.gov
12/06/2006
“The bipartisan Iraq Study Group has concluded that the President’s Iraq policy has failed and must be changed. As the November elections clearly demonstrated, that is an assessment shared by the American people.

“Months ago, House and Senate Democratic leaders suggested to the President that he implement one of the Study Group’s chief recommendations – to change the primary mission of U.S. troops in Iraq from combat to training and support, which would enable the redeployment of U.S. forces to begin. Now that the Study Group has endorsed this proposal, I hope that the President will recognize that he must take our policy in Iraq in a new direction.

Pelosi touts the Iraq Study Group as well as the recommendations of the 911 Commission Report. Funny how she makes no mention of Section 4.5 of the 911 Commission which details failures of the Democratic party against terrorism and Osama Bin Laden leading up to the attacks on the WTC in September 2001. That report details the failures of the Clinton Administration in stopping Osama Bin Laden and perhaps the 911 attack. The ABC airing of the ‘Path to 911′ was met with oppostiion from those associated with or involved in that failure. But the docudrama was derived from the 911 Commission Report and you can read it for yourself.

Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Jack Murtha and friends have supported surrender in Iraq and still do. Even with the success of the troop surge that they have criticized for nearly a year they continue to be fully invested in surrender and appeasement of terrorists. Do they even know how silly they look?

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson’s Website, The Virtuous Republic, Mark My Words, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Chuck Adkins, The Uncooperative Radio Show! Special Weekend!, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Stageleft, Church and State, AZAMATTEROFACT, 123beta, Adam’s Blog, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Big Dog’s Weblog, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Global American Discourse, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

It appears there is more proof the Democratic party is playing for the other team. The party that will not admit their last Presidential Administration had anything to do with allowing 911 to happen continues to push for surrender in Iraq. If you don’t believe they share responsibility for the 911 terrorist attack in NYC, read the 911 Commission Report or check the excerpts on this blog from Section 4.5.

They don’t accept any responsibility for the 911 attacks. All they can say is that they were lied to about the mission, we’re losing the war and the surge won’t work. Now it is the surge is working but that is not good enough. Apparently these morons will continue to push for surrender even if the insurgents commit mass suicide with Democratic party Kool Aid, all Muslims convert to another religion and every country in the world is run by Reid and Pelosi. Perhaps if they pulled their heads out of their backsides everything would not smell so bad to them.

If the left that exists today was in Congress in 1944 there would have been no D-Day, there would have been no Allied victory in WWII and we would all be fluent in German and Japanese. Their preference for partial birth abortions and eliminating traditional values including strong families headed by a man and a woman with a deep appreciation for religious or spiritual influence in daily life weakens the fabric that has strengthened this nation throughout history. You can disagree with others without supporting actions that risk the future of the country and assist those who would do us harm.

Despite the Democratic party’s dysfunctional efforts most news coming out of Iraq is positive. More rebuilding is taking place, more troops are re-enlisting in the field, fewer people are dying, more Iraqis are returning and more areas of the country are retuning to normal. Tribal leaders continue to support the US against insurgents or Al-Qaeda, both Shiite and Sunni clerics are promoting unity and the overall direction is improving. Yet the Democratic party still holds their surrender strategy. Their claim that the midterms were a public mandate for surrender are as big a load of manure as the one they’re trying to sell now. Pardon that error. It’s the same load they’re trying to sell now.

Contrary to the famed Iraq Study Group the Democratic party last used to present their argument, the surge is working. If you cannot admit your were wrong you do not have the strength or courage to govern. That is sort of a moot point as you have done nothing to govern since assuming the majority in Congress after the midterms of 2006.

Iraq Debate Steps Up In Washington
By Paula Wolfson
Washington
02 December 2007

Wolfson report - Download MP3 (659k)
Listen to Wolfson report

U.S. military officials say progress is being made in Iraq, months after an influx of additional American troops. But prominent Democrats in Congress say the military gains are not enough, and the Iraqi government must do more on the political front. VOA’s Paula Wolfson reports.

With Congress deliberating war funding, the debate over the situation in Iraq is heating up again.

The Bush administration says the troop surge ordered by the president earlier this year has resulted in a drop in the level of violence.

The U.S. second-in-command in Iraq says there has been steady progress, and things seem to be moving in the right direction.

General Ray Odierno says both U.S. and Iraqi civilian casualties are down. He also says there has been a 25 to 30-percent decline on foreign fighters entering Iraq, and notes Syria is taking steps along its Iraqi border.

He spoke on CNN’s Late Edition program.

“The additional forces we have [in Iraq] have been able to eliminate safe havens and sanctuaries there were,” said General Odierno. “We continue to see increased capacity in the Iraqi security forces. But probably most importantly, we are seeing the Iraqi people reject terrorism within Iraq.”

The troop surge was ordered by President Bush in an effort to create a security environment in which the Iraqi government could move forward with political reconciliation.

General Odierno was asked if Iraq’s leaders are taking the necessary steps.

“They probably are not doing it as quickly as we would like,” he said. “But they are starting to take steps. Some of these problems are long-term problems that have gone on for decades in Iraq and it is going to take some time to solve them.”

But some members of the U.S. Congress wonder if the current Iraqi government can bring the country together.

Senator Carl Levin - a Democrat from the state of Michigan - is chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. He also appeared on CNN’s Late Edition.

“There is growing, I would say, frustration with the national political leaders in their failure to carry out commitments they made to themselves and us a year ago,” said Senator Levin.

Levin said Congress will provide funding for U.S. troops in Iraq, but added lawmakers will continue to press the Bush administration to pressure Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to settle these political differences.

Members of Levin’s committee have been traveling to Iraq in recent days for a first hand look at the situation. Virginia Democrat James Webb told NBC’s Meet the Press that military progress is not enough. He said the Bush administration has not matched the high performance of American troops with a robust regional diplomacy.

“That is the only way we are going to be able to take advantage of the quality of the work our military people have done and we are still waiting,” said Senator Webb.

Webb has a son who is serving with U.S. forces in al-Anbar province. He said there has been political reconciliation in that part of the country, but stressed it began before the influx of extra American troops.

One headline reads ‘Democrats Split on Driver’s Licenses for Illegal Immigrants.’ Another one reads ‘Black Groups Split on Obama, Clinton.’ Then you have the revelation of Jack Murtha that the troop surge in Iraq is working. But Jack Murtha is split too. Jack Murtha is split with Jack Murtha. Or was his statement clarification more about Reid and Pelosi telling him what he thinks?

Hillary Rodham Clinton is probably still unable to reach a decision on driver’s licenses for illegals. Or perhaps she will use a different answer for each audience as with her other positions. The Christian Post calls her ‘gutsy’ for appearing before conservative evangelicals this week. What’s gutsy about offering a 20,000 count congregation $50 billion for their votes? Not to be outdone and to lessen the impact of Clinton’s quid pro quo with this group of evangelicals, President Bush called on Congress to increase spending on HIV/AIDS. Everyone is going crazy but then politics can do that to people.

The headline stating that black groups are split on Obama and Clinton was really unnecessary. While Clinton has the lion’s share of the national polling numbers for Democrats, Obama is a serious threat to the often described Dems default nominee. And the headline does not take into account that not all blacks are Democrats and not all women are planning to vote for Clinton or Obama.

Even last summer enough Democrats voted against amnesty to split the party. Enough Dems are split on issues to increase the effectiveness of the veto pen for President Bush. The long standing opinion that the Dems do not have focus and sufficient support for a coherent agenda is reflected in their inability to achieve their 100 hour agenda in the 110th Congress or to maintain an approval rating above basement level.

Now for the fighting part, a headline today mentions the Dems candidates fighting over universal health care when what they are really doing is fighting over different insurance plans. Hillary Rodham Clinton complained about an Obama ad she says implies coverage for everyone with a mandate. So Clinton admits her repackaged failure from the nineties is government control of health insurance. As stated here in a recent post on the topic, none of the plans really solve anything about health care. They may do something for providing health insurance for the presently uninsured but that is about it.

The fighting before this week’s health care spat of course involved HRC’s contention that Obama is naive and irresponsible on at least foreign policy and affairs. The folly with these arguments is that Clinton claims the foreign policy experience by virtue of sharing ‘the residence’ with husband Bill during his administration while Obama claims life experience living in Indonesia and having a foreign born parent. Can you say ludicrous?

By far the most amusing headline is about the fear factor. ‘Dems fear Hillary Clinton’s certainty of winning is a big blunder’ is a headline the contradicts the commentary of those who preach the no need for an election theory for they claim they are convinced Hillary Rodham Clinton will be the next President. Are they trying to convince the rest of us to believe that or are they merely trying to convince themselves?

While those opposed to Hillary Rodham Clinton and her pursuits in the 2008 campaign often point to the Clinton history as the reason for their opposition, others who refer to those opposing HRC as Hillary haters is a bit over the top. At least from the view on this blog, Hillary and Bill’s records which won’t be again reviewed in this post, provide ample reason for this opposition. To suggest the opposition is based on hate is absurd. But if you want to suggest those opposed to Hillary Rodham Clinton hate the combined records of the two Clintons you will find no argument here.

sources:
Democrats split on licenses for illegal immigrants USA Today
Abundance of Warmth At Democratic Forum Washington Post
Democrats in Iowa Battle Ice, Each Other The Associated Press
Jeers for Hillary, cheers for Obama
Black groups split on Obama, Clinton Houston Chronicle,
On Clinton and Obama: Even Jacksons divided Baltimore Sun
Ala. Black Group Endorses Obama Washington Post
Moving beyond the bind of race
Democrats fight over universal health care Newsday, NY -
Clinton blasts Obama health care television ad Newsday
Obama v. Clinton on “Universality”The health-care primary, part 6. Slate
Clinton Mad At Obama Campaign Ad
Clinton’s ‘Gutsy’ Church Appearance Softens Evangelicals Christian Post -
Clinton vows to fight AIDS Los Angeles Times
Clinton Builds On HIV/AIDS Plan With Global Development Agenda Media For Freedom
Clinton, Democrats find religion, court evangelical voters
Dems fear Hillary Clinton’s certainty of winning is a big blunder
Murtha Clarifies Iraq Statement