Vice President Joe Biden declared in an interview with CBS’ “Early Show” this week, “Washington, right now, is broken.”
Biden was referring specifically to the state of Congress, claiming, “I don’t recall a time in my career where to get anything done, you needed a supermajority, 60 out of 100 senators.
“I’ve never seen it this dysfunctional,” he lamented, not bothering to mention he himself spent more than three decades in the Senate, a span of time in which, without question, had its share of “dysfunctional” periods.
The vice president’s whining was eerily similar to that of an ideological soul mate, U.S. Sen. Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana, who – in announcing his decision not to seek reelection this year – also diagnosed Congress as “broken.”
“There’s just too much brain-dead partisanship, tactical maneuvering for short-term political advantage rather than focusing on the greater good,” Bayh complained.
Well. A year ago, when Democrats took control of both Houses of Congress and the presidency, the sky was the limit. There was nothing that stood in the way of “progressive” ideals that, for far too long, had simmered on the back burner.
It was time to move America into the 21st century. The people had spoken. The mandate was clear.
Or was it?
Now, just 12 months later, two Democrats – one a sitting vice president – have pronounced our system “broken” and “dysfunctional,” even though their party – while less powerful that it was – still soundly controls two of three branches of government.
What happened? Why would Biden pronounce dead a system he and his boss, Barak Obama, thought worked perfectly not long ago? Why would a sitting U.S. senator with a large lead in the polls decide to opt out of running for reelection? Why do they now believe, suddenly, that the system is broken?
Could it be that what’s really occurring is wholesale rejection of the Obama agenda these and other like-minded Democrats once believed was a slam-dunk? The takeover of health care; a jobs-killing cap-and-trade “environmental” bill based on shoddy and, quite probably, incorrect “scientific” data; legislation that punishes job-creating corporations at a time when unemployment is at near-term record highs; government control over banks and car companies; a foreign policy perceived as weak and apologetic – on all of these issues, Americans have begun to push back, and push back hard.
First, they have done so by electing Republicans to offices and seats long held by these same Democrats. Second, they have begun to organize like never before and voice dissent that has manifested itself in angry town hall meetings over health care last fall, and tea party protests all over the country.
In essence, the American people are rejecting the Big Government agenda long envisioned by the Obama “progressives,” and re-embracing the American principles of hard work, freedom, liberty, fair play and – did I mention freedom?
For that these Americans are being pilloried by the elitist mainstream media and many in the Obama administration as angry crackpots who don’t have a clue and who couldn’t find one with several obvious hints.
Fact is, these Americans know precisely what is going on – they see it daily out of this administration and its ample allies on Capitol Hill – and they don’t like it.
Obama’s poll numbers, as well as those for Congress in general, reflect the mood: downward trends for both, and in terms of Congressional approval, you might even get more support for Joe Stalin or Pol Pot than for that august body these days.
So it rings a bit hollow to hear the likes of Biden and Bayh complain about our “broken” legislative branch. It sounds an awful lot like it is working perfectly: the people are demanding representation on the issues at hand, and judging by the failure of so many left-wing, anti-constitutional measures put forth by the Obama-ites, they are being heard.
More likely these two are complaining about the inability to pass their agenda, which they still advocate for, even though solid majorities of Americans from both parties don’t agree with them.
That’s not a broken system. It’s sour grapes.
-30-
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
When in Doubt, Posture
President Barack Obama – Barry to his closest friends – and fellow Democrats, who are 0-3 in the last three important elections around the country, including losing their filibuster-proof Senate majority with the election of Republican Scott Brown of Massachusetts, have had a bit of an epiphany recently.
Suddenly they seem more eager to “cooperate in the spirit of bipartisanship” with Republicans on Obama’s signature domestic issue, health care.
At least, that’s what they are saying, but be careful about jumping too quickly onto that band wagon.
Granted, what a difference a few election losses can make. Earlier this winter Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), were boasting about how they were prepared to ram controversial health care bills through Congress “with or without Republican help” because they had the majorities to do so. The message: Republican ideas not needed or wanted; we’ll handle this ourselves.
But then something happened. Americans spoke, and in regions of the country that have marched traditionally in lockstep for the Party of Bigger Government, Democrats were sent a message by some of their own voters who said, in essence, we’re not with you on this one.
Humbled (and angered) by the sudden loss of favor among once reliable electorates, party leaders have now resorted to fabrication in order to make it seem like they got the message. Last Sunday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada even had the audacity not to hope but instead to tell reporters that Democrats “have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one.”
This was news to anyone with an IQ above 10 and who also owned a television or had access to the Internet over the past six months.
Reid is a lot of things but bipartisan isn’t one of them. Still, his monumental stretching of the truth is typical mojo for Democrats: When backed into a corner and when it doubt, posture. Tell a whopper. Make something up. The mainstream media will repeat it like lemmings and hopefully, ordinary Americans won’t be any wiser.
Only, ordinary Americans these days are much, much wiser, not only to the tactic but to Democratic priorities in general, one of which is a takeover of the nation’s health care industry, not high on the list of things Middle America wants its leaders in Washington to deal with.
Nevertheless, now comes Obama with his “offer” to reconcile competing health care reform measures with Republicans, in what is no doubt a calculated effort by the president to showcase not his intention to work with the GOP but rather to portray conservatives as obstructionist and out-of-touch with voters.
Already Obama has said he is not interested in “starting over” on a new bill and trashing a nearly 2,800-page health care measure backed by liberals, progressives and “Independents” who crave more power in Washington. Republican leaders have said unless the president is truly willing to do that, there is no sense presenting their ideas – again – only to have them ignored – again.
So what’s the point? Because the president believes just calling for this “bipartisan health care summit” is enough. He thinks good posturing – trying to “look presidential” and “even-handed” – will be enough for him to score political points.
The fact is if Obama was truly interested in vetting the best health care proposals and getting them inserted into a measure both parties would support, he would have enlisted Republican help long ago, well before being forced to do so politically, and real health care reform – if indeed it is even needed – would be law already.
Instead, Obama and Co. are proposing this phony “summit,” yet have set the tone by complaining that there hasn’t been enough “bipartisanship” already, automatically putting the onus on the GOP to produce some “workable solutions.”
For the record, Republicans have made proposals, contained in three separate bills since last summer. The other side, however, wasn’t interested.
The gridlock over health care reform occurred because Democrats who once held veto-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress didn’t think they needed Republican cooperation or support. What’s more, they didn’t want it.
And let’s never forget that Obama and the Democratic leadership are statists at heart. Their first love is government, which is why their initial “solution” to “fixing” the “health care crisis” was (and remains) to let Washington set the tone, make the rules and run the ship.
Recalling expensive, government-run, politicized health care disasters of the past, America said, “No, thanks.”
Which brings us now to Obama’s “offer” to reach a workable solution – which means, of course, workable only to him and the Democrats.
So let the posturing begin. And may the best ideas lose.
-30-
Suddenly they seem more eager to “cooperate in the spirit of bipartisanship” with Republicans on Obama’s signature domestic issue, health care.
At least, that’s what they are saying, but be careful about jumping too quickly onto that band wagon.
Granted, what a difference a few election losses can make. Earlier this winter Obama, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), were boasting about how they were prepared to ram controversial health care bills through Congress “with or without Republican help” because they had the majorities to do so. The message: Republican ideas not needed or wanted; we’ll handle this ourselves.
But then something happened. Americans spoke, and in regions of the country that have marched traditionally in lockstep for the Party of Bigger Government, Democrats were sent a message by some of their own voters who said, in essence, we’re not with you on this one.
Humbled (and angered) by the sudden loss of favor among once reliable electorates, party leaders have now resorted to fabrication in order to make it seem like they got the message. Last Sunday Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada even had the audacity not to hope but instead to tell reporters that Democrats “have promoted the pursuit of a bipartisan approach to health reform from day one.”
This was news to anyone with an IQ above 10 and who also owned a television or had access to the Internet over the past six months.
Reid is a lot of things but bipartisan isn’t one of them. Still, his monumental stretching of the truth is typical mojo for Democrats: When backed into a corner and when it doubt, posture. Tell a whopper. Make something up. The mainstream media will repeat it like lemmings and hopefully, ordinary Americans won’t be any wiser.
Only, ordinary Americans these days are much, much wiser, not only to the tactic but to Democratic priorities in general, one of which is a takeover of the nation’s health care industry, not high on the list of things Middle America wants its leaders in Washington to deal with.
Nevertheless, now comes Obama with his “offer” to reconcile competing health care reform measures with Republicans, in what is no doubt a calculated effort by the president to showcase not his intention to work with the GOP but rather to portray conservatives as obstructionist and out-of-touch with voters.
Already Obama has said he is not interested in “starting over” on a new bill and trashing a nearly 2,800-page health care measure backed by liberals, progressives and “Independents” who crave more power in Washington. Republican leaders have said unless the president is truly willing to do that, there is no sense presenting their ideas – again – only to have them ignored – again.
So what’s the point? Because the president believes just calling for this “bipartisan health care summit” is enough. He thinks good posturing – trying to “look presidential” and “even-handed” – will be enough for him to score political points.
The fact is if Obama was truly interested in vetting the best health care proposals and getting them inserted into a measure both parties would support, he would have enlisted Republican help long ago, well before being forced to do so politically, and real health care reform – if indeed it is even needed – would be law already.
Instead, Obama and Co. are proposing this phony “summit,” yet have set the tone by complaining that there hasn’t been enough “bipartisanship” already, automatically putting the onus on the GOP to produce some “workable solutions.”
For the record, Republicans have made proposals, contained in three separate bills since last summer. The other side, however, wasn’t interested.
The gridlock over health care reform occurred because Democrats who once held veto-proof majorities in both Houses of Congress didn’t think they needed Republican cooperation or support. What’s more, they didn’t want it.
And let’s never forget that Obama and the Democratic leadership are statists at heart. Their first love is government, which is why their initial “solution” to “fixing” the “health care crisis” was (and remains) to let Washington set the tone, make the rules and run the ship.
Recalling expensive, government-run, politicized health care disasters of the past, America said, “No, thanks.”
Which brings us now to Obama’s “offer” to reach a workable solution – which means, of course, workable only to him and the Democrats.
So let the posturing begin. And may the best ideas lose.
-30-
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Uncle Sam's Sex Problem
Most Americans don’t receive the Armed Forces Network, the Department of Defense-staffed and supported television and radio organization responsible for bringing commercial news and broadcasts to military personnel worldwide.
But any consumer of the network – which features civilian programming from the U.S. interspersed with military public service messages – will tell you that, several times per day, there is one urging servicemembers to refrain from committing sexual assault.
The spokesmen are usually the top officers of major commands and they all say the same thing: Don’t do it, and if you do, you face severe penalties, up to and including jail time.
The frequency of such broadcast messages, coupled with the military’s widespread dissemination of printed materials on the subject, along with the Pentagon’s requirement that everyone wearing a uniform attend mandatory annual anti-sexual harassment training, should tell you a couple of things: one, that the military is serious about stamping out the problem; and two, that the problem is widespread enough to warrant so much attention in the first place.
Yet now the president and fellow Democrats want to make it worse by introducing open homosexuality into the ranks.
Forget the fact that politics, and not reasonable, sound military judgment is in play here. Open sexuality of any orientation – heterosexual, homosexual, or a combination thereof – is not just a bad idea, it is one the Pentagon has struggled with for years, despite spending billions of dollars in training and other preventative measures.
Adding a new dimension to the problem is only bound to make it worse, which will in turn reduce military readiness, destroy unit cohesion and unquestionably weaken the good order and discipline civilians can’t understand or abide by but which is critically important to the proper function of the military.
Supporters of the president’s position will simplistically deride any criticism as “hateful fear-mongering intolerance,” but such hypocritical characterizations are as incorrect as they are reactionary.
The fact that the Pentagon has placed so much emphasis on the problem of sexual assault is an obvious indicator of its seriousness and scope. Further, anyone who seriously believes adding openly homosexual behavior into the mix won’t worsen the problem is either delusional or refusing to admit the obvious truth for ideological reasons.
At present the military – correctly – discourages and, under most circumstances patently bans, open heterosexual behavior and contact among troops for the same reasons I mentioned, most notably because it is anathema to good order and discipline. How can open homosexual behavior and contact among like-minded troops be treated or expected to turn out any differently?
The issue of sexuality is unquestionably the military’s biggest social problem, bar none. When you get (mostly) young men and women, in their prime, in such proximity, under stressful conditions, doing jobs that, frankly, require a high degree of aggressiveness, by default you are creating an environment that is conducive to rampant sexual tension. To say that homosexuals in the same situations wouldn’t react the same way is to suggest that gay men and lesbian women are Vulcan-like in their self-control and don’t share the same human sexual desires as heterosexuals, which is absurd on its face.
That’s not to say every male and female soldier is guilty of sexual promiscuity anymore than it is correct to say the same of men and women in the civilian world. But, as the Pentagon’s anti-sexual assault blitz proves, obviously the military has an issue with overt sexuality.
Adding to this already daunting problem may be politically palatable to certain ideologues who – unlike the Pentagon they seek to override – won’t have to deal with the after-effects of their decision. But without a doubt reversing the military’s current ban on open homosexuality will worsen, not improve, its overall readiness.
The current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy may not allow open homosexuality, but it does allow homosexuals to serve. What opponents of the policy refuse to acknowledge is that upon entering the service recruiters don’t ask if you’re straight either.
The bottom line is the military already officially doesn’t care about orientation. Pentagon leaders, however, just aren’t keen to compound what has proved to be a tenacious problem within their ranks – especially in the middle of two wars.
-30-
But any consumer of the network – which features civilian programming from the U.S. interspersed with military public service messages – will tell you that, several times per day, there is one urging servicemembers to refrain from committing sexual assault.
The spokesmen are usually the top officers of major commands and they all say the same thing: Don’t do it, and if you do, you face severe penalties, up to and including jail time.
The frequency of such broadcast messages, coupled with the military’s widespread dissemination of printed materials on the subject, along with the Pentagon’s requirement that everyone wearing a uniform attend mandatory annual anti-sexual harassment training, should tell you a couple of things: one, that the military is serious about stamping out the problem; and two, that the problem is widespread enough to warrant so much attention in the first place.
Yet now the president and fellow Democrats want to make it worse by introducing open homosexuality into the ranks.
Forget the fact that politics, and not reasonable, sound military judgment is in play here. Open sexuality of any orientation – heterosexual, homosexual, or a combination thereof – is not just a bad idea, it is one the Pentagon has struggled with for years, despite spending billions of dollars in training and other preventative measures.
Adding a new dimension to the problem is only bound to make it worse, which will in turn reduce military readiness, destroy unit cohesion and unquestionably weaken the good order and discipline civilians can’t understand or abide by but which is critically important to the proper function of the military.
Supporters of the president’s position will simplistically deride any criticism as “hateful fear-mongering intolerance,” but such hypocritical characterizations are as incorrect as they are reactionary.
The fact that the Pentagon has placed so much emphasis on the problem of sexual assault is an obvious indicator of its seriousness and scope. Further, anyone who seriously believes adding openly homosexual behavior into the mix won’t worsen the problem is either delusional or refusing to admit the obvious truth for ideological reasons.
At present the military – correctly – discourages and, under most circumstances patently bans, open heterosexual behavior and contact among troops for the same reasons I mentioned, most notably because it is anathema to good order and discipline. How can open homosexual behavior and contact among like-minded troops be treated or expected to turn out any differently?
The issue of sexuality is unquestionably the military’s biggest social problem, bar none. When you get (mostly) young men and women, in their prime, in such proximity, under stressful conditions, doing jobs that, frankly, require a high degree of aggressiveness, by default you are creating an environment that is conducive to rampant sexual tension. To say that homosexuals in the same situations wouldn’t react the same way is to suggest that gay men and lesbian women are Vulcan-like in their self-control and don’t share the same human sexual desires as heterosexuals, which is absurd on its face.
That’s not to say every male and female soldier is guilty of sexual promiscuity anymore than it is correct to say the same of men and women in the civilian world. But, as the Pentagon’s anti-sexual assault blitz proves, obviously the military has an issue with overt sexuality.
Adding to this already daunting problem may be politically palatable to certain ideologues who – unlike the Pentagon they seek to override – won’t have to deal with the after-effects of their decision. But without a doubt reversing the military’s current ban on open homosexuality will worsen, not improve, its overall readiness.
The current “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy may not allow open homosexuality, but it does allow homosexuals to serve. What opponents of the policy refuse to acknowledge is that upon entering the service recruiters don’t ask if you’re straight either.
The bottom line is the military already officially doesn’t care about orientation. Pentagon leaders, however, just aren’t keen to compound what has proved to be a tenacious problem within their ranks – especially in the middle of two wars.
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
