The Conservative Cave

Current Events => Politics => Topic started by: 5412 on January 28, 2010, 07:36:59 PM

Title: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: 5412 on January 28, 2010, 07:36:59 PM
Hi,

I suspect most of you will love this one.

regards,
5412


The Credibility Gap
 Today at 2:17pm
While I don’t wish to speak too harshly about President Obama’s state of the union address, we live in challenging times that call for candor. I call them as I see them, and I hope my frank assessment will be taken as an honest effort to move this conversation forward.

Last night, the president spoke of the “credibility gap” between the public’s expectations of their leaders and what those leaders actually deliver. “Credibility gap” is a good way to describe the chasm between rhetoric and reality in the president’s address. The contradictions seemed endless.

He called for Democrats and Republicans to “work through our differences,” but last year he dismissed any notion of bipartisanship when he smugly told Republicans, “I won.”

He talked like a Washington “outsider,” but he runs Washington! He’s had everything any president could ask for – an overwhelming majority in Congress and a fawning press corps that feels tingles every time he speaks. There was nothing preventing him from pursuing “common sense” solutions all along. He didn’t pursue them because they weren’t his priorities, and he spent his speech blaming Republicans for the problems caused by his own policies.

He dared us to “let him know” if we have a better health care plan, but he refused to allow Republicans in on the negotiations or consider any ideas for real free market and patient-centered reforms. We’ve been “letting him know” our ideas for months from the town halls to the tea parties, but he isn’t interested in listening. Instead he keeps making the nonsensical claim that his massive trillion-dollar health care bill won’t increase the deficit.

Americans are suffering from job losses and lower wages, yet the president practically demanded applause when he mentioned tax cuts, as if allowing people to keep more of their own hard-earned money is an act of noblesse oblige. He claims that he cut taxes, but I must have missed that. I see his policies as paving the way for massive tax increases and inflation, which is the “hidden tax” that most hurts the poor and the elderly living on fixed incomes.

He condemned lobbyists, but his White House is filled with former lobbyists, and this has been a banner year for K Street with his stimulus bill, aka the Lobbyist’s Full Employment Act. He talked about a “deficit of trust” and the need to “do our work in the open,” but he chased away the C-SPAN cameras and cut deals with insurance industry lobbyists behind closed doors.

He spoke of doing what’s best for the next generation and not leaving our children with a “mountain of debt,” but under his watch this year, government spending is up by 22%, and his budget will triple our national debt.

He spoke of a spending freeze, but doesn’t he realize that each new program he’s proposing comes with a new price tag? A spending freeze is a nice idea, but it doesn’t address the root cause of the problem. We need a comprehensive examination of the role of government spending. The president’s deficit commission is little more than a bipartisan tax hike committee, lending political cover to raise taxes without seriously addressing the problem of spending.

He condemned bailouts, but he voted for them and then expanded and extended them. He praised the House’s financial reform bill, but where was Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae in that bill? He still hasn’t told us when we’ll be getting out of the auto and the mortgage industries. He praised small businesses, but he’s spent the past year as a friend to big corporations and their lobbyists, who always find a way to make government regulations work in their favor at the expense of their mom & pop competitors.

He praised the effectiveness of his stimulus bill, but then he called for another one – this time cleverly renamed a “jobs bill.” The first stimulus was sold to us as a jobs bill that would keep unemployment under 8%. We now have double digit unemployment with no end in sight. Why should we trust this new “jobs bill”?

He talked about “making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development,” but apparently it’s still too tough for his Interior Secretary to move ahead with Virginia’s offshore oil and gas leases. If they’re dragging their feet on leases, how long will it take them to build “safe, clean nuclear power plants”? Meanwhile, he continued to emphasize “green jobs,” which require massive government subsidies for inefficient technologies that can’t survive on their own in the real world of the free market.

He spoke of supporting young girls in Afghanistan who want to go to school and young women in Iran who courageously protest in the streets, but where were his words of encouragement to the young girls of Afghanistan in his West Point speech? And where was his support for the young women of Iran when they were being gunned down in the streets of Tehran?

Despite speaking for over an hour, the president only spent 10% of his speech on foreign policy, and he left us with many unanswered questions. Does he still think trying the 9/11 terrorists in New York is a good idea? Does he still think closing Gitmo is a good idea? Does he still believe in Mirandizing terrorists after the Christmas bomber fiasco? Does he believe we’re in a war against terrorists, or does he think this is just a global crime spree? Does he understand that the first priority of our government is to keep our country safe?

In his address last night, the president once again revealed that there’s a fundamental disconnect between what the American people expect from their government, and what he wants to deliver. He’s still proposing failed top-down big government solutions to our problems. Instead of smaller, smarter government, he’s taken a government that was already too big and supersized it.

Real private sector jobs are created when taxes are low, investment is high, and people are free to go about their business without the heavy hand of government. The president thinks innovation comes from government subsidies. Common sense conservatives know innovation comes from unleashing the creative energy of American entrepreneurs.

Everything seems to be “unexpected” to this administration: unexpected job losses; unexpected housing numbers; unexpected political losses in Massachusetts, Virginia, and New Jersey. True leaders lead best when confronted with the unexpected. But instead of leading us, the president lectured us. He lectured Wall Street; he lectured Main Street; he lectured Congress; he even lectured our Supreme Court Justices.

He criticized politicians who “wage a perpetual campaign,” but he gave a campaign speech instead of a state of the union address. The campaign is over, and President Obama now has something that candidate Obama never had: an actual track record in office. We now can see the failed policies behind the flowery words. If Americans feel as cynical as the president suggests, perhaps it’s because the audacity of his recycled rhetoric no longer inspires hope.

Real leadership requires results. Real hope lies in the ingenuity, generosity, and boundless courage of the American people whose voices are still not being heard in Washington.

- Sarah Palin
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: Aaron Burr on January 28, 2010, 07:44:51 PM
Global crime spree is my favorite zinger. Dang girl, tear em' up!

And thanks for the very cool article 5412. Wow.
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: 5412 on January 28, 2010, 07:56:29 PM
Quote from: Aaron Burr on January 28, 2010, 07:44:51 PM
Global crime spree is my favorite zinger. Dang girl, tear em' up!

And thanks for the very cool article 5412. Wow.

Hi,

We have some friends who say they cannot stand Palin so I sent this to them and of course no one knows she wrote it until the very end.

If people would judge her on who she is and what she says, not what others say she said, they would be a lot better off.

regards,
5412
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: DixieBelle on January 28, 2010, 08:01:04 PM
Out of the park Sarah!!!

I sent that to my die-hard liberal New Yorker friend. I'll have to let everyone know what happens.
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: Oceander on January 28, 2010, 08:01:49 PM
Mind that gap!

(http://i758.photobucket.com/albums/xx221/B_Oceander/Democrat_Lies/mind-the-gap.png)
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: Oceander on January 28, 2010, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: DixieBelle on January 28, 2010, 08:01:04 PM
Out of the park Sarah!!!

I sent that to my die-hard liberal New Yorker friend. I'll have to let everyone know what happens.

That may prove a more interesting response than you may think - Obama just peed all over everybody in NYC by basically saying he wants to cut all the funding for the health problems of the folks who responded to lower Manhattan on 9/11.  I don't think there are going to be a lot of happy liberals in this city for much longer.
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: IassaFTots on January 28, 2010, 08:10:34 PM
Wow.  Thanks 5412.  Thanks!
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: 5412 on January 28, 2010, 09:17:21 PM
Quote from: IassaFTots on January 28, 2010, 08:10:34 PM
Wow.  Thanks 5412.  Thanks!

Hi,

Suggest you go on Twitter and thank Sarah, she wrote it.

Can you imgaine how she would eat Obama alive in a debate?  Would love one with a true moderator, not one of the liberals throwing marshmellow questions.

regards,
5412
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: Doppelganger on January 28, 2010, 09:31:38 PM
This is a good article. So that's more points for Palin in my book, I guess. I'm really starting to reconsider my opinion of her.  :o

Now if only she'd dump that Republican Party membership...
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: Oceander on January 28, 2010, 09:32:28 PM
Quote from: Doppelganger on January 28, 2010, 09:31:38 PM
This is a good article. So that's more points for Palin in my book, I guess. I'm really starting to reconsider my opinion of her.  :o

Now if only she'd dump that Republican Party membership...

Hmm, I'm afraid we have bad news for you - your DU visa was just cancelled.
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: bkg on January 28, 2010, 09:37:15 PM
It was good, I agree.

One thing missing: The so-called (self proclaimed) "Constitutional professor" doesn't recognize when a law is unconstitutional...
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: Doppelganger on January 28, 2010, 09:42:43 PM
Quote from: Oceander on January 28, 2010, 09:32:28 PM
Hmm, I'm afraid we have bad news for you - your DU visa was just cancelled.

 :rofl: Well, I was never a very 'good liberal' even when I used to think I was more liberal than I actually am.
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: delilahmused on January 28, 2010, 10:54:51 PM
Quote from: Doppelganger on January 28, 2010, 09:31:38 PM
This is a good article. So that's more points for Palin in my book, I guess. I'm really starting to reconsider my opinion of her.  :o

Now if only she'd dump that Republican Party membership...

We have a 2-party system. Best to change the Republican party from the inside than split it. A split party is a losing party (see Ralph Nader and Ross Perot).

Cindie
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: Doppelganger on January 28, 2010, 10:58:26 PM
Do you think so? I have strong doubts. I don't think it'd be unhealthy for our system to finally stop being two-party. At a time like this, when confidence in both parties is plummeting, I think someone with a strong, sensible voice and the right qualifications could stand a serious chance of putting together something that might work. Nader and Perot did lose, but was there anything like the Tea Party movement going on at the time they tried? That's pretty strong proof of a national outcry for reform and something different than the same Washington BS.
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: LC EFA on January 29, 2010, 02:23:23 AM
Quote from: Doppelganger on January 28, 2010, 10:58:26 PM
Do you think so? I have strong doubts. I don't think it'd be unhealthy for our system to finally stop being two-party. At a time like this, when confidence in both parties is plummeting, I think someone with a strong, sensible voice and the right qualifications could stand a serious chance of putting together something that might work. Nader and Perot did lose, but was there anything like the Tea Party movement going on at the time they tried? That's pretty strong proof of a national outcry for reform and something different than the same Washington BS.

Over here we have a whole collection of political parties - the Greens , The Aust. democrats , Labor , Liberal , National , and some other fairly irrelevant ones.

It STILL eventually becomes a two party system because yea or nay is two sided coin and the minor parties don't regularly bring forward legislation etc. The smaller parties that often hold the balance of power can prevent or enable any parliamentary or senate vote - and often do when it suits their interests or the interests of the special interest group they represent (not necessarily , might I add the interests of the public at large).

They don't actually *DO* anything more than provide a vote enabled group that BOTH primary parties can pander to with resources better used on the community as a whole or better still, refunded to the people they were stolen from in the first place.
Title: Re: Best analysis I have seen yet about SOU address, cuts to the core real quick
Post by: 5412 on January 29, 2010, 10:37:43 AM
Quote from: LC EFA on January 29, 2010, 02:23:23 AM
Over here we have a whole collection of political parties - the Greens , The Aust. democrats , Labor , Liberal , National , and some other fairly irrelevant ones.

It STILL eventually becomes a two party system because yea or nay is two sided coin and the minor parties don't regularly bring forward legislation etc. The smaller parties that often hold the balance of power can prevent or enable any parliamentary or senate vote - and often do when it suits their interests or the interests of the special interest group they represent (not necessarily , might I add the interests of the public at large).

They don't actually *DO* anything more than provide a vote enabled group that BOTH primary parties can pander to with resources better used on the community as a whole or better still, refunded to the people they were stolen from in the first place.


Hi,

Couple of comments on the two party system. 

First of all Palin made it very clear on the Glenn Beck program that being a republican just seems more practical.......meaning yanking the party back to the party of Reagan.  She fears as many have mentioned that a third party would just give the libs more control.  Now I read where the conservative are trying to get candidates to sign on to 8 of 10 conservative principals or they will lose their funding.  Media is laughing and squaking but to me that is a step in the right direction.

Now as to having several political parties.  To me a camel is a horse designed by a committee.  The more political parties you have the lumpier it gets.  What really concerns me is this.  Let's say you had two parties with 45% each and one with 10%.  In order to bribe the other 10% they get offered all kinds of stuff and the 10% becomes much more powerful than they should ever be allowed to be.  You end up with the tail wagging the dog.

Personally I like it when the bulk of Americans are considered independent and in the middle......hopefully they are educated and have some common sense.  The real problem is the mainstream has forgotton their job is to educate so it is left to Fox news etc.  Like the health care bill, once they got educated their voices were heard loud and clear.

When Clinton and Lord Arrogant tried to tell the fence sitting democrats the reason they lost in 1994 was because they did not get a health care bill passed they were so full of it they looked like fat Albert.  The reason they lost in 1994 is because of what they tried to do......and it should be their undoing again in 2010.

The majority party to me is those in the middle, they have the power to make or break. if the Republicans would listen to the conservatives, and look at how the campaign contributions to their party have dropped radically, they might figure it out.

regards,
5412

PS:  God we need more straight talk like the Palin article, that is something Republicans also have gotten away from....