Tag Archives: Democrats

Comrade Bush


Hugo Chavez, the dictator of Venezuela, referred to President Bush as Comrade Bush and said Bush has moved “left” in the financial crisis. Normally, I would defend the President and his actions, I can’t say that I have minded the Bush administration and generally feel he has done a better job than most give him credit for.  But in this instance Hugo Chavez is absolutely right!

President Bush moved left like I never thought possible.  First, fully supporting spending 700 billion dollars to bailout mortgage companies, then announcing that the federal government will buy majority shares of private banks!

Is he kidding? What have we become as a nation?  Is our society and culture so reactionary that we will compromise the very founding principles that made us great?  Apparently so. But if I wanted to live in Venezuela or Russia I would move there.  But I don’t, I want to live in America, moreover I want to live in a place where I can work hard, earn money to support my family and live a comfortable life, and have the freedom to worship, play, work, speak, and move the way I want to. But the actions of our government over the last few years continually erode those rights. 

But, you may be saying, what does the nationalization of banks have to do with the way you want to live?  Well, it is yet another step towards socialism and government control.  Government, no matter where you live, loves its power and will rarely relinquish it but often seeks to expand it.  Does anyone honestly think that the continued forays of the government in to the private markets and our citizens pocketbook is going to slow down any time soon?  Especially considering the legislature will continue to be controlled by America’s socialist party (Democrats) and will soon have the most left of their Senators as her President?  No chance.

And that is the most frustrating aspect of this whole move by Bush to begin nationalizing these banks. He came out and said that he wasn’t a fan of this action but felt it was necessary to ensure stability in the banking structure of America and then he promised that this is a short term nationalization and that the government will sell the shares back to the companies when stablized.  Does he think we are stupid?  Do any of you believe him? Not me.  And it is not that I don’t believe him per se, it is that the decision will not be his.  If this occured in his second year as President, I would be more inclined to believe him. Why? because he would be the one to decide on the action of selling the shares a year or two down the road.  But he has three months left in office.  So unless he sells those shares before January 20th, they aren’t getting sold anytime soon.  Do you think Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid will sell them?  No chance.  They have little faith in the free market, support government control, and have no desire to relinquish power.

How dare our government take such irresponsible and reactionary actions? In any free society and market there are going to be ups and downs.  Major collapses seem to occur every 10-15 years (see 2000 and the Tech collapse) and every time our market pulls out of it and becomes stronger (see the Bush economy around 2006).  The free market is like nature: unpredictable, wild, efficient, successful, and prone to forest fires and disasters.  Additionally, just like a forest fire in nature is initially devastating to the forest, it is always a net positive.  The forest grows back healthier and stronger.  The market is the same way.  A fire is often necessary to get rid of the chaff and strengthen the economy, except in this instance, our government decided to use taxpayers money…MY MONEY… to keep the chaff in the market.  It will be a disaster, everything the governement touches usually does.



Filed under Democrats, Election 2008, George Bush, Liberal, Politics, Republicans

Hurricane Katrina: The Debacle that Wasn’t

For some unfathomable reason the “debacle” of the Hurricane Katrina aftermath was somehow blamed on the  “non-first responder” FEMA and President George Bush.    For  the life of me I cannot comprehend this and, even more, I cannot comprehend how Republicans and President Bush have allowed themselves to take the blame for the perceived debacle.

First of all, the aftermath and recovery was not a debacle in any way.  It was among the greatest successes, yet with many failures and shortcomings, of disaster response in our history.   But yet again, the sheeple of America bought the line that it was a preventable disaster of immense proportions and it was all Bush’s fault.  B.S.  Yes it was a monumental disaster, but that is why hurricanes are called natural disasters.  Hurricanes are supposed to do damage and be disasters, if they weren’t they would be called a severe thunderstorm.

Despite the fact it was not a debacle, with more coming on that in a bit, even if it was how on earth was it Bush’s fault?   How did so many of you completely miss the terrible leadership of Mayor Ray Nagin and Governor Kathleen Blanco?  Don’t you remember the images of school bus depots full of buses during the mandatory evacuation that happened to not be used?  I do.  Mayor Nagin demonstrated the worst example of leadership on the part of a major city mayor in human history until Mayor Kilpatrick of Detroit this year.  (Ok, I have no real evidence to back that last statement up).  But the Democrats and the media’s hatred of Bush found it easy to push the blame on him.  What a sham.

But don’t take my opinion on this at face value, check out this article from Popular Mechanics called “Debunking the Myths of Hurricane Katrina”.   It seems to me that this is the least partisan article on the topic I can find.  It is an automotive and technology publication for crying out loud.  Here is a snippet from the (fairly lengthy) article:


MYTH: “The aftermath of Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history.”–Aaron Broussard, president, Jefferson Parish, La., Meet the Press, NBC, Sept. 4, 2005REALITY: Bumbling by top disaster-management officials fueled a perception of general inaction, one that was compounded by impassioned news anchors. In fact, the response to Hurricane Katrina was by far the largest–and fastest-rescue effort in U.S. history, with nearly 100,000 emergency personnel arriving on the scene within three days of the storm’s landfall.

Dozens of National Guard and Coast Guard helicopters flew rescue operations that first day–some just 2 hours after Katrina hit the coast. Hoistless Army helicopters improvised rescues, carefully hovering on rooftops to pick up survivors. On the ground, “guardsmen had to chop their way through, moving trees and recreating roadways,” says Jack Harrison of the National Guard. By the end of the week, 50,000 National Guard troops in the Gulf Coast region had saved 17,000 people; 4000 Coast Guard personnel saved more than 33,000.

These units had help from local, state and national responders, including five helicopters from the Navy ship Bataan and choppers from the Air Force and police. The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries dispatched 250 agents in boats. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state police and sheriffs’ departments launched rescue flotillas. By Wednesday morning, volunteers and national teams joined the effort, including eight units from California’s Swift Water Rescue. By Sept. 8, the waterborne operation had rescued 20,000.

While the press focused on FEMA’s shortcomings, this broad array of local, state and national responders pulled off an extraordinary success–especially given the huge area devastated by the storm. Computer simulations of a Katrina-strength hurricane had estimated a worst-case-scenario death toll of more than 60,000 people in Louisiana. The actual number was 1077 in that state.

Look, we Americans often fail to accept that bad things happen and people die.  Hurricane Katrina was a terrible, terrible event in our history.  But it was no one’s fault.  No one is to blame.  It was a hurricane and it will not be the last major hurricane disaster in our history.  I guarantee that sometime in the next 200 years another major hurricane will directly hit New Orleans and practically destroy it again, it is the nature of New Orleans’ location and below sea level situation.


Filed under Politics

A Nation of Fear Mongers

We have become a nation of sissys.  Everywhere we look there are people warning of this and warning us of that.  New regulations on everything in the name of safety or saving the environment or whatever. Advertisers are among the worst of them, but no one plays the fear mongering game better than both of our major political parties.  Sure, people on the Right say that it is the Left playing on our fears and people on the left say the Right are the culprits; but honestly both play the game to perfection – all in the name of votes and control.

The left are economic fear mongers.  Certainly there is cause for concern in each field.  On the economic front all we have heard about for the last year is economic doom and gloom.  If one just paid attention to the news, they would think that things were worse than the depression.  The housing crunch and high gas prices are definitely terrible and having a negative affect on the economy, I concede that the economy is hurting, but it is far from dire.  We aren’t even in a recession, despite the fact that is all we have heard about.  In fact, the Commerce Department announced today that the economy grew at a staggering 1.9%.  What? it grew? not only that, it grew more than most European countries do in normal economic times!  So even when the U.S. economy is in the crapper, we still are stronger than France.  Amazing.

This bit of economic growth, despite being better than forecast, doesn’t mean that all is past.  Much of that growth was impacted by the economic stimulus package.  A benefit we won’t have in Q3, so it is quite reasonable to assume that growth will be worse in the next report, perhaps even negative.  But a recession is not a recession until there are 3 consecutive quarters of negative movement, something I predict will not occur.  It sure feels to me that we have already passed the bottom and are on the way back up.  If so, we will have ridden through this economic crisis extremely well and many of us may be wondering what all the fuss was about.   All the Left has done is try to strike fear in all of us and, arguably, have caused a significant portion of the economic downfall as a result.

But the Right is no better, and they are often scarier.  The right are security fear mongers.  They won the 2002 and 2004 election playing on our fears.  The fact is terrorism is not an existential threat to America. Period.  Sure they are a threat, they have and may again kill thousands of Americans. But they don’t threaten the our very existence.  Our government has a duty to protect us, but they also have the duty to preserve our freedoms, and that is something that the GOP, especially the executive branch have been threatening.   Have you ever heard Secretary Chertoff speak?  I stopped on C-Span a few months ago to listen to Chertoff; he spoke on a national ID card.   As I listened to his reasoning all I pictured was no privacy and the government with an eye on everything.  I say now that Chertoff is the most dangerous person in our Government.  Sometimes, people become so focused on one mission, in this case protecting us, that they lose the importance of other considerations.

To me freedom is more important than security.  As an American, I recognize that with freedom comes threat and danger.  I am ok with that.  I recognize that terrorists will strike again, it is an inevitability.  I just hope that our government doesn’t create a police state in the name of trying to prevent one.  The role of our government is to ensure freedom above all else.  I recognize that some things need to be tightened up, but within reason.

The problem the government faces is that they are full of elected officials.  And whomever is in power when the next terrorist strike occurs will not be in power the next election.  The opposing party will crucify them and the American people will buy it like lemmings.  It is a real shame.  Basically, in order to preserve their own job, historical legacy, and votes our elected officials will continue to take away freedoms in the name of national security (and don’t think the dems won’t do when they are in power, they will).

Ultimately, fear mongering is the political play of our time and it wll continue to be as long as the people walk around like sheep and care more about Anna Nicole Smith than the successes in Iraq.  The economy is not in as terrible shape as the Democrats would have us think and our safety and security is not as threatened as the Republicans would have us believe.  Don’t believe the hype.

P.S. The same principle applies to the Environment, is there a bigger example of fear mongering than that. Ridiculous.


Filed under Conservative, Democrats, Election 2008, Politics, Republicans

Obama’s VEEP?

Let’s be honest, this election is the Democratic party’s to lose, specifically Barack Obama. The amazing thing is, it is actually a distinct possibility. The Democrats aren’t very good at choosing “winnable” candidates, but that is a discussion for another day. The topic at hand is who are the Vice Presidential choices for Obama.

Before we get to names, let’s discuss what attribute Obama needs in a running mate. First, Obama needs someone with ridiculous experience. Lack of experience is Obama’s biggest weakness. Also, he needs a person who can keep Clinton’s voters in his camp, who is fairly moderate, and has military or defense credentials.

The other question we need to ask is who is the best veep to help Obama win vs. who is the best veep for the Obama presidency. This is extremely important, as we get into the top choices, here is why:

1. Hillary Clinton. If Obama chooses Hillary as his veep, he is a shoe in for victory in November. He keeps Clinton’s voters in his camp, thus eliminating a huge potential voting block for McCain.

However, in the same way that Hillary would be great for getting him elected, she would be the absolute worst for him personally while he is President. The last thing Obama wants is a Clinton (Hillary or Bill) breathing down his neck saying “well, this is how we did it in the ’90’s”. Obama needs to and must make a complete break from the Clinton’s and begin his own era in the Democratic party. If I am Obama, I take the risk of a loss; there is no way I choose Hillary.

2. Jim Webb, Virginia Senator. He is an extremely popular Senator from a swing state. A state the Dems have an excellent shot of winning and taking from the GOP. He also is a military man and worked in the Reagan administration. He is a moderate Democrat as well.

However, he, like Obama, has very little experience. This could be his death knell. Obama must have an experienced VEEP.

3. Joe Biden, Delaware Senator. He has a ridiculous amount of experience and would actually be a solid President. He also is among the most experience in terms of international affairs. Also, he is a white male (like Webb) and a typical US politician. Usually that is a bad thing, but considering Obama, it might help even out the ticket.

His big weakness however is that he is divisive (the GOP HATES him) and really excites no one.

4. Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania. He has enough experience and is a governor, thus he has executive experience. Additionally, Pennsylvania is a state that is being targeted by John McCain in November, choosing Rendell would likely keep PA in Dem hands. (Note, there is a rumor that Tom Ridge, the former PA Governor is at the top of the list for McCain’s veep; I think it would be a terrible choice).

5. Gen Wesley Clark. He is a solid Democrat and a former Military general. He could potentially bring in a significant chunk of GOP voters whom don’t like McCain, but are wary of Obama’s defense credentials.

Other possibilities:
– Evan Bayh
– Michael Bloomberg
– Chris Dodd
– Bill Richardson
– Kathleen Sebelius
– John Edwards

One of the positives for Obama as he searches for a Vice President is that his veep choice is less crucial than McCain’s. People are excited about Barack and don’t need as much of a reason to vote for him. On the other hand, I don’t know anyone who is excited about a McCain Presidency. McCain needs to make waves with his veep pick, or at least choose a person that will help voters to logically vote for him.

The stars seem aligned for Obama as of right now. But the GOP was smart and chose the only candidate that could win for their party (which is a sad reality for me to come to, as I have a man-crush on Romney). John McCain has a very real chance to beat Obama, so Obama should not be too comfortable about his chances.


Filed under Election 2008, Politics

Frustrated War Protesters

Apparently, many War protesters and activists are becoming increasing frustrated with the lack of motivation in the anti-War movement.

Of course they are! Why? Let me count the ways.

First, we are hardly in a War right now.  Basically, we are carrying out a massive peace-keeping and rebuilding operation.  To actually call what is currently going on in Iraq  a “war” is a bit ridiculous; there are no major battles, no storming of beaches, no crazy carpet bombing, so on and so forth.  Sure, there are military raids to root out terrorists or the occassional strategic bombing, but really a majority of the troops there are acting as peacekeeping troops and helping with Iraq’s infrastructure.

The only reason we call this a war is because of political reasons.  Republicans use the term war because it helps drum up support for funding and political backing from their base.  Democrats use the term war to drum up the anti-war sentiment and solidify support from their base.

What is going on in Iraq is nothing like what happened in Vietnam, Korea, Japan, or Germany.  It is a completely different conflict that, all things considered, is going quite well right now and looks like there will be a positive outcome for the U.S. and Iraq.

Aside from Why we went to Iraq in the first place and simple , I don’t understand what the anti-War movement is so upset about.  About the only argument they make that makes complete sense is that Iraq should be spending its own oil revenue to fund their reconstruction, amen!

How could they possibly expect the American people to be passionate against the war?  Just because polls show that 60-70% of Americans want the troops withdrawn in the next two years and think the war was a mistake, doesn’t mean they advocate our defeat there or think we have lost.  In fact I want our troops home in the next two years too.  Anyone who doesn’t has issues.  But that doesn’t mean they should be brought back in the next two years.  I want the job done and I want Iraq to be successful.  These things can’t be rushed, and, like nearly all of our previous wars in our history, it has taken a few years for our troops start winning and gaining the upper-hand (go read your history of the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and WWII).  We have a knack for struggling for a while, but we always seem to come out on top (and many argue we would have in Vietnam had we been given another year or two).

The other reason people are apathetic is because there are more important issues that we are facing, e.g. the economy.  Additionally, we are in the depths of a historic Presidential campaign where we focus on issues that are beyond trivial.

So basically, people are apathetic because things are not that bad in Iraq and we are generally safe from terrorism (and this is true and something I intend to address in a future post).  The only way the war gets more coverage and people end up being passionate against it is if there is no perceived progress ever occurring, like pre-2007.  However this is not likely.  The only thing that could make things interesting is Iran; their involvement and the way we handle them.


Filed under Conservative, Democrats, Election 2008, Politics, Republicans

Pray for a NC, IN Split for the Dems

Tomorrow is yet another big day on the wild ride that is the Democratic race for the Presidential nomination.   What a ride it has been and continues to be.  If you are like me, a Republican and always interested in observing history as it happens, you want this to go on as long as possible. And in order for that to happen we need at least a split victory tomorrow.  Fortunately that is looking pretty good.

The most ideal situation would be Hillary blowing out Barack in Indiana, by at least 10 points.  Then have Barack just barely beat Hillary in North Carolina by 1-4 points.   This would continue the rhetoric of late that Barack is choking, thus keeping Hillary in the race, all the while still ensuring that Barack is the most likely nominee.

As long as Hillary thinks there is a chance on earth for her to get the nomination she will stay in.  And because Barack has the easiest path to the nomination there is no way he will drop out before convention.  And convention is what we want.

Sure, having the democratic race go to convention is great for Republicans because it keeps the dems attacking each other and allows the GOP candidate, John McCain (ugh!), to keep his shirt clean and promote a positive message without being attacked by the left.  But that is only a small benefit to me, for I don’t even know if I will vote for McCain in November (don’t worry I am not voting for Barack no matter what!).

The primary reason I want this to go to convention is to witness history. Because of how the nomination process now occurs, this is likely our one and only chance to witness a meaningful convention!  Who wants to miss out on that?  Not I.   If the Dem convention actually means something this year I will tune in and be glued to the TV, I may skip work to watch it.  If it doesn’t go to convention, I won’t watch 30 seconds of it.  So please, please Indiana and North Carolina, keep the dream alive.  Help we American witness history, we will likely never have another chance.

1 Comment

Filed under Democrats, Election 2008, Politics, Republicans

Redeploy This!

Over the past year or so the favorite phrase of the democrats regarding the war in Iraq usually has been a variation of “We are calling for a full redeployment of troops.”  The term redeploy (or  slight variations of it) as used by Democrats completely drives me up the wall and is the stupidest word I have heard used in a politics. And the funny thing is, the media never-ever calls them out it.  What a bunch of hacks.

Redeploy, especially to those of us with military backgrounds, implies sending a deployed troop from one deployment to a different one; something like redeploying a troop from Iraq to Afghanistan.  If it doesn’t conjur this view up, it makes us think a soldier is being deployed yet again after a short stint home.  But does any soldier actually hear the term “redeployment” and think, “hey, that means I’m going home?”  Probably not, at least not until it became a political buzz word for our anti-Iraq left.

Basically the term redeployment is a rouse.  It is a cover term that carries far less political baggage that saying we are going tuck our tails, retreat, and run home in the face of even the slightest opposition.  Certainly by using the term redeployment, it protects the dems politically.  Most Americans don’t pay attention to where candidates actually stand, nor do they care (just look at the success of Obama);  basically we allow uninformed ignorant people to choose our leaders.  So the average voter hears the term redeployment and thinks, “oh they care about the troops and are going to bring them home in an honorable and militaristic fashion”, for the word redeployment sounds militaristic.  What a bunch of suckers.

The thing that drives me nuts it that no one that I have seen, until this post, has called anyone out for it.  Am I the only one that notices this?  I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.   It reminds of how no one seems to notice that the phrase “I could care less” makes absolutely no sense”.   What is wrong with people?  Anyway,  let’s stop allowing the left a free pass for making up words (is redeploy even a word?) and then using them to try to con the people.  In fact, we should call out people from whatever persuasion for doing this.  We should demand that the lefties say what they mean and that is, “we need to surrender and bring are troops home now.”    Hold their feet to the fire.


Filed under Barack Obama, Democrats, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Politics