AP: Obama "belt tightening" weak.

To say I agree would be a massive understatement:

Cut a latte or two out of your annual budget and you’ve just done as much belt-tightening as President Barack Obama asked of his Cabinet on Monday.

The thrifty measures Obama ordered for federal agencies are the equivalent of asking a family that spends $60,000 in a year to save $6.

Obama made his push for frugality the subject of his first Cabinet meeting, ensuring it would command the capital’s attention. It also set off outbursts of mental math and scribbled calculations as political friend and foe tried to figure out its impact.

The bottom line: Not much.

Yeah Mr. President, great job getting our spending under control sir. If this doesn't convince a lot of people this administration is nothing but one massive PR stunt, I don't know what will!

Dear President Obama

There is a change coming to this blog. I have used this as both a place to post my comments on politics and to post columns I write. I'm switching this up to make it a bit more organized. I will always link to columns, but hence forth On Politics shall be used as a live blogging feed for me, while my new column series will be posted at the "Dear President Obama" website.

"Dear President Obama" is going to be a lot of fun!

Rumors of an RNC Coup d'etat

There are rumors that South Carolina Chairman Katon Dawson, who placed second in the race for RNC Chairman is organizing a Coup d'etat to overthrow Michael Steele, who started a mere five weeks ago, because of comments saying he wanted to put a "hip hop" spin on the GOP and his less than thoughful words about Rush Limbaugh on DL Hughley show and reaction to Hughley calling the GOP the "nazi party." Dawson denies this and says he has full faith in Michael Steele.

The conservative base's reaction to Michael Steele is going to be one of the very first things we talk about on the podcast that should be up sometime next week, but the very fact that people are already gunning for him to be thrown out after just five weeks without fundraising data, an election, or anything else to judge him on is ridiculous! And if this was indeed started by Dawson, it will be seen as a power grab by a man who was the only candidate running for RNC Chairman not to endorse Rebuild the Party, an organization that is going to be vital in reaching the YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter generation, and who sent a letter to a whites only country club he was apart of, urging the owners to change their policies only after he was interested in running for RNC Chairman.

While I haven't been able to confirm this, Dawson's wikipedia page seems to indicate that he got into politics because he was fiercly anti-desegregation. Again, this is a pretty big charge and I want to make clear that I haven't confirmed that yet and I'm still looking into it. (I think I'm small enough to mention this in my post)

If this is true, it would be a serious problem for the Republican Party to overthrow it's first black chairman in favor of this man. As much as we don't want to make things about race (and I want to make clear, I don't think there is any racial tinge behind what Dawson is doing at all) the media would have a field day with this story.

Memo to Meghan McCain: Conservatives Aren't the Problem

Meghan McCain seems like a very sweet girl, but aside from the fact that her latest article on The Daily Beast chiding Ann Coulter and "the most extreme side" of the Republican Party is poorly written (it reads like a fresh out of the house co-ed rebelling against her parents and everything they stand for), it misses the point. Ms. McCain lived in New York for a number of years, she attended Columbia University (not extactly a hotbed of conservatism) she voted for John Kerry a year ago, and only became a Republican less than a year ago. She acknowleges all of this and says, 'I am not suggesting I be any kind of voice for the party.' (>chuckles<) Good Meghan, very good, because we're not suggesting you be any kind of voice for the party either.

I am also assuming Ms. McCain lumps Gov. Palin in with the "extreme side" as she has said that Sarah Palin is the only thing that she "will not comment on."

What Ms. McCain and other Manhattanite and Washington Republicans don't realize is that their environment does not reflect the rest of America and the way that most Americans live. New York City accounts for less than 3% of out total population, there is a "rest of America" out there, believe it or not and the rest of America does not think the way New Yorkers, Chicagoians, Angelinos, and Washingtonians think. That rest of America feels unrepresented.

Rush Limbaugh, whom I am also guessing is apart of the "extreme side," put it best at CPAC. The key for us to winning elections is to stand on principle, because every one lives their lives as a conservative in one way or another. We're never going to win moderate democratic leaning independents, but we might be able to pick up a large chunk of conservative Democrats. This is how we win. If Ms. McCain is really a "progressive Republican" and believes in the basic tennents of conservatism--limited government, free market economics, and national security (and she has indicated she does) people like her will tag along because the alternative is much worse.

I'm not going to label Meghan McCain a RINO (Republican In Name Only--a term I despise, actually.) and she is welcome to be a Republican. I think there's also an argument to be made about the Republican Party's position on gay marriage, and whether that position truely aligns with our beliefs, but the point is, we need to have a conversation not a scolding by moderates. I would suggest she familiarize herself with the way conservatives think by reading the following works:

The Constitution of the United States of America
The Decleration of Independence
The Federalist Papers by James Madison
The Conscience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater
.....and.....
Treason by Ann Coulter

Yes, Treason should give Ms. McCain a good history on how the left has betrayed this country time and time again when it really mattered.

Decimate Those on The Enemies List

Even President Nixon kept his enemies list private, but Barack Obama and the Democrats can't even do that. They've gone out of their way to blast CNBC's Rick Santelli and liberal Democrat Obama-voting Jim Cramer for criticizing the President on his stimulus approach, but even these two men fail to compare to public enemy #1 in the eyes of the Democrats: conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh.

Now, Democrats are saying that Rush cruely said that Sen. Ted Kennedy would be dead before health care reform passed.

This is exactly what Rush said on his program on Friday:

RUSH: I asked the question yesterday, the soonest we're going to get health care reform -- and, by the way, the Democrats are pushing for this fall, they'd like it as soon as they can -- if they get national health care, folks, the country as you and I have known it is over, but the failing health of Senator Kennedy is, as I told you way back when, the driving force here. The failing health of Senator Kennedy is already being used as an inspirational effort, or technique, to get national health care on the fast track. This is supposed to get you a job. You're losing your job and losing your house because of health care costs. And I asked you to think, you're expecting to be out of work until November or December, whenever they can get this done, if by then, and then all of a sudden once health care reform is done your job's going to come back?

You heard that right, folks and it IS exactly true. The Democrats are using Sen. Ted Kennedy's illness to pass health care reform, they're trying to make it his triumph. They're taking advantage of it for political purposes, this is what is really sick. I'm sure Kennedy's okay with that, he is afterall a committed liberal.

The President went out and declared that there was no time to delay, no time for debate on this issue. When is there time for the president? We're already living in a much different country with his budget and stimulus plan. Do we really need ANOTHER huge entitlement?

For goodness sake, Mr. President, can't you see people are suffering? People's retirements are being flushed down the toilet and all you and your administration can do is take advantage of these crises to pass your agenda? In the words of Keith Olbermann, "Where is your dignity, sir?" Then when people criticize you, you go out of your way to demonize them? What happened to dissent is the highest form of partiotism? I suppose this flies out the window when your president thinks he's God.

The Parable Of The Talents...Obamacized - OC BLOG (CA), Part of the Red County Network

The Parable Of The Talents...Obamacized - OC BLOG (CA), Part of the Red County Network

Posted using ShareThis

Reagan voted for FDR

Cross Posted at RedState

Ronald Reagan is the greatest President of the 20th century. His presidency and policies brought about three decades of unprecedented success, peace (at home for the most part), and prosperity this country has ever known. There is something that people forget about Reagan though, he was at one time a Democrat who voted for FDR and as a Democrat, he believed he was a great President.

Reagan, of course, would later renounce the Democratic Party and not only embrace conservatism, but become the leader of the conservative movement.

Michael Steele isn’t likely to become the next leader of the conservative movement, but he can’t seem to escape that he once worked with former New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman, an infamously liberal Republican, on the Republican Leadership Council. In fact, following his criticism of Rush Limabugh during an interrogation by CNN’s resident comedian D.L. Hughley (who, by the way, has no business hosting a news show), Erick Erickson referred to Michael Steele was a “Christine Todd Whitman-Republican” when listing a group of “so-called conservatives” who criticize Rush right here on RedState.

With all due respect to Mr. Erickson, I am going to have to disagree with this assesment. Michael Steele has had a tough week, there’s no doubt about that, but I have no reason to doubt Mr. Steele is a conservative. He articulated what conservatism is all about week after week on “Hannity & Colmes.” While there is some confusion with whether or not he is a moderate on some issues, throughout the campaign for RNC Chairman, Mr. Steele gave a point-by-point, issue-by-issue summary of where he stands. There are defintely a few minor differences (For example, Mr. Steele is opposed to gay marriage, but also opposed to a federal amendment to ban it), but overall Steele fits comfortably into the 80% conservative bracket and a past link to Christine Todd Whitman is pretty silly, considering Reagan actually voted for FDR in the past, and the RedState editor’s choice for RNC Chairman, Ken Blackwell actually voted for Jimmy Carter in the 1976. (For the record, I also think Mr. Blackwell would have been a fine RNC Chairman.) Michael Steele is sufficiently conservative, and he believes conservative principles are what is going to bring the party back as he’s said many times. The “hip-hop” comments were nothing more than his effort to try and take the conservative message to people it hasn’t been taken to before. Which is smart and refreshing, I’ve heard party activists in the past say minority voters are unwinmnable because we don’t believe in giving out handouts. This is the most condescening and ignorant comments I’ve ever heard, as Rush Limbaugh has said, most people live their lives conservatively in one way or another, we need to at least present our argument to everyone, that is what Steele was saying.

What’s really bad is the Democrats are accomplishing what they want accomplished. They’re turning the party heads on Rush, and then pitting the party heads against the bloggers: divide and conquer. That is the Democrat’s goal, they want to make sure we destroy ourselves by fighting amongst ourselves. A rift between conservatives and moderates? Mission accomplished. Now their goal is to create rifts within the conservative movement. This is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” Now there is talk that party activists want Steele dumped. The guy’s been on the job for a little more than a month, I think we can give him a little bit of time before we start the excommunication process. Besides could you imagine the field day the Democrats would have with the Republicans dumping their first black chairman? While I would absolutely support dumping Steele if he was not sufficiently conservative, damn the consequences, it would be a terrible PR move for the GOP. But I don’t think that’s a problem, because I think Steele is sufficiently conservative and I think it’s a mistake for bloggers and party activists to call for his head because he used to work with Christine Todd Whitman as a conservative voice on a moderate Republican council and made a gaffe about Rush Limbaugh. Let’s not forget, we’ve all made mistakes, even Ronald Reagan voted for FDR.

Marginlization

The left is beginning to gain a little bit of ground and it all revolves around one man whom the vast majority of conservatives support and respect; talk radio mega-super star Rush Limbaugh. Two groups are falling victim: conservative leaders in Washington like House Minority Whip Eric Cantor and RNC Chairman Michael Steele. All three of these men don't have to fight for leadership (Rush isn't) and all three of them lead the party in their own way, Rush is the getting the troops riled up, Michael Steele is organizing and drawing up strategy and Eric Cantor is organizing the Lieutenants in the House. The second group to get riled up is the conservative blogosphere, I have read some negative things about Cantor, but there is outright red-eyed rage being poured over Michael Steele. One prominent conservative blogger even went as far as calling him a "Christine Todd Whitman-Republican" in one of his posts.

I think both groups need to stop fighting with each other, step back and think about the strategy of the left. What better way for the left to get ahead than turn the blogosphere against the conservative leadership in Washington? The leaders in Washington need to grow a spine and defend Rush, but the blogosphere needs to calm down too. Rush would be (and is) disappointed in both of you. We've got to defeat this insane expansion of the federal government in less than two years and it's going to take every single hand on deck to accomplish it.

Steele, Cantor, Limbaugh, The Bloggers, they'll all be apart of this. We've got to work together.

Michael Steele Apologizes to Rush Limbaugh: What This Means.

Without having to write a huge article, because the subject is really simple, I’ll make this short. Michael Steele stated in his apology to Rush Limbaugh, that

“there was no attempt on my part to diminish his voice or his leadership…there are those out there who want to look at what he's saying as incendiary and divisive and ugly. That's what I was trying to say. It didn't come out that way."

The reality is, Rush Limbaugh, both entertainer and political genius, really summed it up well at CPAC when he said that “all we need is the right candidate” and what he meant by that was, we need real conservatives in Washington to represent the Republican Party.

Limbaugh was correct in also saying that he wants President Obama to fail; at least if you are one who does not agree with President Obama concerning the ridiculous idea of "fundamentally changing the United States of America."

Rush Limgaugh wants to see President Obama fail because of the big government big spending agenda he has for this country. Rush Limbaugh's message at CPAC, a was simply to say that if conservatism is to succeed again, we actually need to run conservative candidates. I think what Michael Steele was doing by putting Limbaugh down was trying to adhere to the liberals who hate him, Steele was trying to distance himself from Limbaugh but then realized, Rush was right: as Republicans we hope President Obama's liberal tax and spend policies do fail.


As for the Democrats trying to find some drama in the former feud between Limbaugh and Steele, RNC spokesman Alex Conant said it best:

“Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats know they lose an argument with the Republican Party on substance, so they are building straw men to attack and distract…the feud between radio host Rush and Rahm makes great political theater, but it is a sideshow to the important work going on in Washington. RNC Chairman Michael Steele and elected Republicans are focused on fighting for reform and winning elections. The Democrats' problem is that the American people are growing skeptical of the massive government spending being pushed by congressional leaders like Nancy Pelosi."

We're hard at work getting all the details together! Andrew Ntzouras (the other guy in the video) will officially join me as my co-host for the show and he will also contribute from time to time on this blog! I've also got two other guys lined up for the rotation that I will officially announce very very soon and I have two or three more people I'd like to try and round up before we start to get going.

I'll be joined by two to three people in my line-up of friends to discuss the latest on politics here in the United States and from time to time around the world as well. The show will last 15 to 20 minutes (Ntzouras has such a short attention span, he thought 5 minutes would be more appropriate! I told him we gotta have a substantive show.) if the show is entertaining enough we could increase the running to to 1/2 an hour to 45 minutes, but I need you guys to let me know if you want more!

I'm very, very excited about this! We're all working very hard to bring you something interesting and entertaining!

Rebuild the Party.

I have to tell you, I LOVE the website RebuildtheParty.com, they've got alot of fantastic ideas there. I have been saying to my close friends for quite some time, one of the biggest missed opportunities in the last election was not finding more people who could tell their stories. We jumped on Joe the Plumber (and quite frankly, that guy has overstayed his welcome, it's called fifteen minutes of fame for a reason, buddy) but we should have been doing this sooner.

The American people have forgotten why we are Republicans. The left has successfully put it in people's minds that the Republican Party is for "failed" policies of a wild west economy, endless wars, and against gay people. We have to remind people why we are Republicans and what it is to be a conservative:

I have asthetic issues with the video the font reminds me of an old uncle trying to be "hip" and it doesn't really fit what they're trying to do, but overall I think the message is pretty good and it's well edited.

Rush's "Speech"

Other than speeches by Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, Conservatism has never been articulated as well as Rush articulated it tonight. Conservatism is about the success and prosperity of the American people and Rush more than nailed it! Rush summed up his views on wanting the president to fail, 'I want all of you and every American who wants to be successful to be as successful as you can, and I want every person, institution, and idea who gets in the way to fail.'

Rush successfully took the left's criticism of him and turned it on his head, he framed liberalism as abject cruelty and a system created to make it's supporters feel good without regard to the consequences of the policies they support. Rush blamed liberalism for the collapse of the family, for the collapse of the minority communities they claim to so faithfully represent, and for their efforts to rebuild a massive welfare state that generations of Americans will have to pay for and that is going to put more people in depedence of government. All of these criticisms are valid, alive, and true but haven't been used by the Republican Party in a long time.

The point Rush was trying to drive home is this: we must not try and look like the Democratic Party and we must not think we will get anywhere by being a minority party, we have to set the tone, set the agenda. We can not let the policies of Barack Obama destroy the America we know and love.

I'm not going to post the speech here, but you have got to see it. Go YouTube it. It is absolutely what we needed.

2012: Romney One to Watch.

Mitt Romney is one to watch for the 2012 Republican Presidential Nomination. He was named the top choice at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) with 20% of the vote. Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA) got second place with 16% of the vote, followed by Gov. Sarah Palin (AK) and Rep. Ron Paul (TX) each with 13% of the vote. 

Anyone who has read my postings over the past 18 months (on other venues such as Facebook) knows I have been very critical of Mitt Romney. I essentially agree with most things Romney says, but I just have a hard time trusting him since he seemed to have a lot of convenient election year conversions on issues he had held for years. I have also met consultants who worked with and for Mitt Romney who told me is a little bit less socially conservative than he makes himself out to be. 

Even Romney supporters acknowledge this, Ann Coulter, whom I have a great deal of respect for, admitted that the only reason Romney supported more liberal social positions was because he needed to win the election in Massachusetts. My thing is this, if you're a social liberal, be a social liberal, be real. But there are some really good things about Romney.

1. Romney is an expert on the economy and as we're in the midst of an economic crisis, it might be a good idea to have someone who is fluent on these issues. All four candidates can articulate a conservative economic message, but it is Romney who can expound, answer questions with specificity, this may be very helpful, even if we recover by 2012, with President Obama's economic policies, it's going to be a very slow climb back up and with other credit bubbles getting ready to burst, we may be facing an even bigger hard climb up. 

2. Romney has a very Clintonesque ability to shift as he needs to without damaging his credibility, look at the bank bail out plan. Romney was for it before he was against it before he was for it. My theory is, he was trying to figure out the confusing Bush plan and work out the facts before he made a solid decision about it. 

3. Moderates like Romney. In a Rassmussen poll taken right after the election, Palin won with conservatives and Romney won with moderates, if conservatives warm up to Romney it would unite the entire Republican Party and get alot of people involved to help get him elected. 

I still have not made a decision on who I will support in the 2012 election, I respect all of the candidates listed and think all of them are infinitely better than the president, but I need to see the campaign before I make a decision. 

Ntzouras: Obama's Iraq Policy is essentially Bush's.

Couldn't have said it better, from my good friend Andrew Ntzouras, whom I'm hoping will eventually post here and is going to join the line up of Podcast panelists said it best on his Facebook:

Today, President Obama stated that by 2010 all combat troops will leave from Iraq and that by 2011 the remainder of the support troops will do the same.

But this is not new news. This was decided under President Bush's watch.

"President George W. Bush has already signed off on the agreement, which sets legal jurisdiction over U.S. troops and contractors and lays out timetables for withdrawal of U.S. forces. The SOFA calls for all U.S. forces to fall back out of Iraqi cities by June 2009 and to be out of Iraq by the end of 2011."

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/19/iraq.sofa/index.html

When was this written?
9:45 p.m. EST, Wed November 19, 2008

So in short, President Obama today only repeated what was determined by President Bush last November.

These next few years will be tough no doubt, and the road ahead will have its challenges. I pray God may keep our troops safe from harm, and may God continue to bless America. The greatest country on God's green earth!

-Andrew

Yeah, I agree, although at that time the MSM-types where all arguing that President Bush was following then-Senator Obama's lead (Give me a break!) Still it's interesting that President Obama seems to want to take credit for the withdrawl of troops in Iraq, when it would not have ever been even remotely possible without a massive bloodbath where it not for the troop surge he opposed and said would make violence worse.

Josh's Weekly AmIdol Review

I can't really give you a best and worst list this week as I thought pretty much everyone did an awful job, and I'm thinking I might be rooting with the Vote for the Worst crew for Nick Mitchell, who is at least entertaining. There were a couple of people who at least showed some potential: When she started singing, I really liked Allison Iraheta and I thought she nailed her rendition of Heart's "Alone," though I'm kind of tired of chick rock singers who sound like her. It's so 1980s to me, especially in the age of Hayley Williams of Paramore and Amy Lee of Evanessence. What I'm trying to say is you don't need the gruff "I'm gonna beat you up" girl rock voice to be a chick rocker these days, there's alot of diversity in sound out there right now with successful rock women. I also thought Megan Corkery is an interesting choice, she sort of reminds me of Brooke White of last year. They both have different styles, but they're both throw backs. Megan could do very well this season, she's different and as Randy said with successful artists like Duffy, Adele, and Amy Winehouse there seems to be a market for her kind of sound. And finally, managing not to completely out-gay his own rendition of Cher's "Believe," Adam Lambert did his version of The Rolling Stones' classic "Satisfaction." I agree with Simon, the parts that sucked sucked really badly, but the parts that were good were really, really good. It was very over the top, and I expect that is what we should expect from him. What's strange about Adam is that I think he could and will do really well, but he doesn't seem very American Idol. I think he makes it to the Top 12, but he'll be a non-typical AmIdol contestant going up against Mr. American Idol himself, Danny Gokey. (Who as of now is my absolute favorite to win the competition.) So there you have it, unless Nick Mitchell manages to pull an upset, I think the three moving forward are Allison (who was the best last night), Adam and Megan.

Conservatives Don't Need "Their Own Obama"

Barack Obama is the most popular politician in the United States. The Republican Party is it's most dire straits since Watergate, so it's probably natural for the media to assume we need a "conservative Obama"-- a great orator, someone who can bring people to their feet in fervent and jubilant ecstasy just by his or her mere whisper. This line of thinking is the wrong track to think on and it's why the criticism being leveled against Gov. Bobby Jindal, whom liberals have suddenly labeled as our one great hope against the jagguarnaut that is Barack Obama in the 2012 election. I have many liberal friends that have expressed to me their admiration of Bobby Jindal, and I am happy to agree-- I think Gov. Jindal is a great guy, he understands conservatism, he's very smart and a big policy-wonk and he's going to be a fantastic presidential candidate one day and probably a great president, but he is no Barack Obama.

Obama was elected on his teleprompter aided oratory skills, grand themes, and the power and that's about it it. Obama is not extraordinary off-prompter. Is he disciplined? Yes. Is he on-message? Absolutely. But he's nothing out of the ordinary. His experience? He was an average state legislator, an average senator, and chances are, if his ill-thought out social programs don't send us to hell and a handbasket, he'll be an average president. Oratory skills only get one so far. Not to mention there were plenty of down right bad presidents and evil leaders who were impressive orartors. While FDR was a great war-time President and deserves a high ranking because of this, he was a terrible domestic-policy president. New Deal programs did not lift us out of the Great Depression, in fact pre-WWII, as infrastructure projects ended President Roosevelt saw unemployment begin to rise again. German Chancellor Adolf Hitler rose to power on his oratory skills, and it became the darkest period of German history. That's not to say Obama is FDR or Hitler, it's to make the point that oratory skills are helpful, but don't automatically make a great president.

I have a sneeking suspicion that Obama has a general idea of where he wants to go, but doesn't have thought-out policies. That's why he handed over the stimulus package to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. He knew he wanted one, he had a general idea of where he wanted to go, but didn't really have a thought out plan on what specific items would be in it or how they would be implented. It's probably going to be a similar situation in regards to Health Care, and entitlement reform, both of which the president highlighted in his quasi-state of the union adresss. Obama's ideas are general, most of his voters believe his policies are "hope" and "change," and he's delegating the drafting and implementation.

Obama is also a poweful symbol: the first African-American president. Someone asked me if GOP Chairman Michael Steele was chosen for the post because he was an African American to stand against Barack Obama. It's a fair charge, but I turned the question around on that person: 2004, 89% of African Americans vote for Kerry, 2008 95% of African Americans vote for Obama, a six point jump. Now, I'm not an African American, so I can't pass judgement on African Americans who voted for Obama because he's black, but there was a portion of African Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2004 who voted for Barack Obama in 2008 because he's black. Because Obama is a a better symbol. I have a couple of black conservative friends who told me they voted for Obama for that very reason (and they didn't like McCain.)

Conservatism cannot win this way. Conservatism is about ideas and that is the basis on which we are attacked. Do I think attacks on Bobby Jindal are anti-Indian? No, they're anti-conservative. Do I think attacks on Sarah Palin are anti-women? No, they're anti-conservative. Do I think attacks on Michael Steele are anti-black? No, they're anti-conservative. Liberals don't care what color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, nationallity, profession, whatever other group they break themselves into, they hate the message and they'll do whatever it takes to take it down, even destorying the messanger. A "conservative Obama" is impossible because a conservative cannot win like Obama. They just don't have the media backing to be vague like Obama (A conservative will never send a thrill up Chris Matthews' leg for example.)

Conservatives need to be principled, they need to be specific, and they need to show competence. If those three things are in place they have a chance at earning my vote. People like Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, and Michael Steele are not perfect, but they have been principled, specific, and competent. If I were Chairman Steele, I would encouage his two leading conservative candidates for the 2012 campaigns around being the anti-Obama.

Thoughts on President Obama's quasi-State of the Union

So far... meh... I mean the speech isn't over yet, but I'm not experiencing the supposed soaring feeling one gets when listening to President Barack Obama. (Or as Chris Matthews likes to say the "thrill running up his leg.")

It sort of typifies what has been going on since he was inagaurated though. The president is trying to reach across the isle while playing CYA and Congressional Democrats are hyper partisans wanting to rub the Bush administration in the eye even after the former President has left office.

Example? The President kept saying, "deficit we inherited," and at one point the Democrats cheered triumphantly. Nevermind this President and this Congress have already ran up the deficit about as much as President Bush did during his entire second term, they're still in love with the idea that Democrats are the fiscally responsible ones...

We'll have to see if Obama The Great's entrence is as triumphant in two years time when giving a real State of the Union address, but for now this is looking like a bunch of pompt and circumstance with not a whole lot of substance behind it.

On Politics Podcast--COMING SOON!!!!

The On Politics Podcast is coming soon!



The Politics of Envy

The further I get in life (all almost 22 years, haha) the less I believe in luck. I don't think successful people are lucky and unsuccessful people are unlucky. I think across the board, across races, across genders, etc. successful people work hard and unsuccessful people are usually unsuccessful for a reason and I'd say about 80% of the time it has at least something to do with themselves. My mother always used to tell me, "successful people work hard" and I bore witness to this in her life as she worked hard she was promoted very quickly year after year. Liberals do not believe in this. They would say my mother was lucky she was white and she'd been promoted even faster had she been a man, both of which could be true to a certain degree, but I cannot ignore the examples of Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Antonio Villariagosa, Chris Gardner, Linda Chavez and yes, President Barack Obama who pressed through obstacles, worked hard, and where able to get ahead in life.

It's unfortunate that President Obama, despite knowing this to be true, continues to promote the politics of envy. Intentionally or not, the president has a tendancy to pit rich against poor, black against white, Democrat against Republican, himself against former President Bush. Despite being hailed by the media as the great uniter, President Obama is promoting policies, from his massive stimulus plan that rewards liberal special interest groups rather offering any real significant stimulus to the economy to his new housing plan that rewards faliure giving breaks to people who could have never afforded the mortgages they took out in the first place, that are dividing more and more Americans. You think we were divided under Bush? While I doubt the mainstream conservative opposition will spew the level of vitriolic venomous hatred the left gave Bush during his tenure, expect the substantive debate to be intense as Obama is showing his belief system is far off the mainstream American belief system.

Obama clearly believes that those who are poor and unforunate are there because they're unlucky: they were born into poverty, they're black, hispanic, or some other victimized minority, they've got the wrong last name. Obama even throws gays and lesbians into this group, despite the fact that gays and lesbians are generally much more successful and better off financially than straight people in their same socioeconomic group. Obama may think one of the presidents duties is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States" but it's just the side job, the real job of the president in his mind, is to make sure that those who are less fortunate in our society know they have an ally and that they punish those who have kept them there.

Look, no one denies that there is inequality and injustice in our society, I have visited over ten countries all over the world and I can tell you in each one there is inequality and injustice. I also believe that we need to do what we can to give everyone as much equal opportunity as possible. But equality of outcome is where I get nervous. If an African American man is working his ass off night and day to provide for his family do you think he should be paid the same amount as the lazy ass white guy who shows up punches his card, converts oxygen to CO2, punches his card out and then leaves? Of course not! The black guy should be paid WAY more, he's working alot harder! Should that white guy complain that he isn't being treated fairly cause he's not getting what the black guy's getting? It would be ridiculous for him to do so. If the white guy wants more income, he should work harder. Now I know more often than we'd think, that white guy would be getting the same pay and sometimes even more, but most of the time, 70% of the time in 2009 I would guess, people are judged by their work ethic and their character.

Envy is not something confined to race though, whites are just as suseptable to envy as any other person on the planet. Most poor people I know are white and most poor people I have encounted all have something in common: envy. Envy is listed amongst the Catholic Church's "Seven Deadly Sins" for a reason, it can literally destroy one's life. It can keep one from reaching their full potential. Envy keeps people from discovering their ability and talent because envious people are too busy noticing everyone else's talent and ability. It keeps people from appreciating what they have because they're too focused on what other people have. Envy keeps people from dreaming for more for their life because they can't get over the fact that someone else has more than them. Envy is a dangerous flame to fan and President Obama and the Democrats are fanning it faster than anyone I've ever seen fan it.

I am not dismissing the fact that there are other factors that play into poverty and I am not dismissing the fact that it is harder for minorities and women to get ahead in life, but what I am saying is it does not help anyone to live in envy. I can't change the fact that my credit is crap right now, but rather than blaming the guy with good credit for my bad choices, the best thing I can do is make good choices today and try to improve it. It's going to be hard for me to do certain things, it's going to be hard for me to buy a car with a reasonable interest rate, or get services without paying deposits, but I've got to do things to help myself, otherwise I'm screwed.

Josh's AmIdol Review: Top 36 Group 1

I'm not gonna lie, I'm an American Idol fan. Isn't it just quintessentially American to have a group of people with a dream getting a chance to fulfill it? I know this is a site on my opinion on politics, but seeing as more people vote in the AmIdol competition than vote for President of the United States, I'll cross the bridge between the less serious and the more serious and hopefully, maybe bring people who are interested in Idol and not that interested in politics, over to the basics! Anyway here where my top and bottom three tonight.

Bottom Three:

WORST OF THE WORST: Casey Carlson- Wow. Casey is fine. And that's about where it ends for her. She's got absolutely no stage presence and her choice of The Police's classic "Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic" was a huge, huge, HUGE tragic mistake. Casey is a classic case of the ballsy choice is not always the best choice. Kara called her a "package artist" and herein lies the error of Casey's ways. She could have afforded to be safe, she's fine and she's got a decent voice, had she done a slower more sultry song it would have been easier for her to sing and she probably would have had a shot of going through.

2nd- Anoop Desani- I like 'Noop-Dawg, (Randy and Kara kept calling him "Anoop-Dawg", when he actually first introduced himself as "'Noop-Dawg") however his choice of "Angel of Mine" showed he really doesn't have alot of imagination and he's content on being that ballady R&B singer. He has a good voice that reminds me a bit of Brian McKnight, but he strikes me as the sort of guy who would be content singing his favorites from the vast catalouge of R&B super hits for his close family members for the rest of his life. I don't really think his heart is in winning this competition.

3rd- Ann Marie Baskovich- I hated it. I think Ann Marie is hot, but choosing "A Natural Woman" was a bad choice. Kelly Clarkson nailed that song time and time again and it became her signature song during the show, Ann Marie should have sung "Love Song" as Kara suggested. I think there's a good, marketable contestant in there some where and I hope the judges give her another shot in the Wild Card round.


TOP THREE

3. Tatiana Del Toro- As despicable a person as Tatiana is, she did sing very well tonight. I think she should go onto the next round and the producers of Idol are going to be very glad for that as she is so much drama. She might not make it through because people can't stand her. The judges were saying they'd like her to be more flamboyant, I've got to say she was actually tolerable tonight and she would do herself a great disservice to go back to her dramatic ways.

2. Alexis Grace- Very, very good. As the judges said, she's the dark horse and does have a Kelly Clarkson sort of vibe to her. I liked her look and she was sexy. I like how she is heeding the judges advice, it shows she has maturity and that she really wants to go far as a recording artist.

THE CREAM OF THE CROP: Danny Gokey: Danny was, by far, the best tonight. His redition of "Hero" by Mariah Carey was a smart move and an obvious inspirtation from David Cook doing "Always Be My Baby" last season. Danny was the best and he'll go far.



Overall, I was pretty disappointed, this is not the level of talent we had last year, hopefully the next two groups are alot better.

Why Universal Health Care Sucks.

1. He's a Canadian and has experience dealing with it, I don't.

2. He's really funny and I am not.

So here is Steven Crowder, giving you the inside scoop as to why UHC blows.

Quote of the Week

"Oh this is such a blessing Mr. President, thank you for taking time out of your day, Oh gracious God thank you so much!!!!"

-Julio from the Fort Myers, FL Obama rally.

Of course, he was probably thanking the literal God, not The Messiah. But still in the age of Obama-madness, you could'a fooled me.

Gave Me Chills.....

Jennifer Hudson singing the National Anthem at the Super Bowl on Sunday:

Phenomenal!

Civility, Not Bipartisanship.

You know, it’s really funny to me that liberals in the media are insisting that in order for conservative Republicans to be relevant, they have to go along to get along with the Obama administration because the American people have a desire to see bipartisanship in Washington. Well, first of all I think that is, as my friends across the pond would say, “bollocks.” Even if it where true, what the Democrats have been touting as bipartisanship is not real bipartisanship. Bipartisanship requires real comprimise, it requires give and take because it requires shared responsibility. Why should the Republicans vote for something in which they had no input in and then share responsibility with the failed policies of the Democrats?

While the GOP’s whole hearted rejection of President Obama’s simulus package was encouraging, I would urge them not to pursue the supposedly desired “bipartisan era” the nation so desperately desired according to the media. That’s right, say no to bipartisanship. For starters, as we’ve discussed, the left doesn’t have an inkling of what true bipartisanship is. I could point to a number of supposedly “bipartisan” pieces of legislation that are indistinguishable from the Democratic Party’s platform. How do you think the Democratic Party was able to accomplish as much as they did in the 2000s? Look at “No Child Left Behind” or the prescription drug benefits bill or even the failed “comprehensive immigration reform” package. They’re all tinged with liberal ideas and verbage and give very little to no room for conservative ideas.

There’s a reason for this, and it’s the same reason President Obama’s inauguration speech while rhetorically phenomonal fell flat in the substance department. The fact of the matter is, free market capitalism can not coexsist with command economy socialism. It just does not work. There is a fine line and a choice that every American has to make: we’re either free and have a free market with limited oversight and enforced laws or we live in a soceity where the government determines the operations of our market. Simply put, true conservatives ideas cannot coexsist with liberal progressive ideas. If we try to merge them, we won’t end up with a utopia, we’ll end up in a society in constant schizophrenia, confusion, and frustration.

No, the American people do not want bipartisanship. Where I live in conservative Orange County, committed conservative Rep. John Campbell easily won re-election, but Barack Obama won his district by a signifcant margin, which means people who voted for President Obama also voted for Rep. Campbell. This is not an isolated case, across the country, conservative candidates easily win re-election while moderate and liberal Republicans go down in flames. The American people are looking for a choice. In 1964 Barry Goldwater’s campaign slogan was “A Choice, Not an Echo” and that slogan rings true today. The American people are crying out for a choice between bigger government and limited government, between true free-market capitalism and the wierd supposedly capitialism-socialism hybrid that really is just socialism.

That being said, I do think Americans desire some civility to be brought back to the politcal process. This is not something conservatives in Washington need to work though, this is something the left needs to work on. Flaunting one’s wins around like they’re some trophy rather than the daunting task of making America a better place is not very classy. Creating rules making it impossible for one’s opponents to mount a serious opposition is near draconian. It is civility, not bipartisanship that America is looking for. Quite frankly, the ball is in the Democrats court here and blaming a conservative talk radio host in Florida is not going to solve anything.

If Democrats need a lesson in civility, look at the relationship between the Bush family and the Clinton family. These are two families at the opposite sides of the political spectrum, but somehow they have managed to form a real friendship. For as much of a creep as President Clinton is, I can not help but admire the compliments he gives to Republicans and the respect he shows to both Presidents Bush.

It’s time the Republican Party embraces conservatism and a complete wholesale, total rejection of liberalism. It’s time we go back to the principles that made us great. There is no need to “reach across the isle,” Republicans have done that for too long and it hasn’t gotten us anywhere. The Republicans need to remember a full 47% of people rejected President Obama’s plans for America, there is no consensus and no need to listen to pundits who live in Manhattan and Washington DC, listen to the people who put you in those seats, and maybe, just maybe, we’ll go out and fight for you.

Cross-Posted at RedState