Conservatism Today

Coulter's Latest Bestseller and the Super Bowl

I have two posts up at Patriot Room that might interest you this weekend.

One is my prediction of tomorrow's Super Bowl between the Arizona Cardinals and Pittsburgh Steelers. At the end of that post, you can win a copy of Ann Coulter's latest bestseller (or a book of your choice).

The other is my book review of Ann Coulter's latest bestseller, Guilty: Liberal "Victims" and their Assault on America

Enjoy.

Stimulus Bill is Democrats Baby

They own it. Now they are accountable. Either this bill jumpstarts the economy, or the Democrats should be voted out of power in 2010. Don't you think?

Robert Garding of Wise Conservatism doesn't see much hope for the stimulus package meeting its goals.

Well, today the Obama administration and the democrats, without any help from the Republicans, did it. They went and passed their economic stimulus bill, that will cost the American people for generations to come, on top of what has already been put onto their backs from the bailouts and stimulus bills of the last six months. And all in the name of “doing it now so that the economy will not suffer.”

Well, people to get this straight, we are heading into the same kind of thing that we were heading back in the days of the great depression, in that the government will NOT stay out of it so that it can run it’s course and be over with. and they have been told by people with PhD’s on the subject that it will not work. But did they listen? Oh no. They have to stick their greedy little noses into it, and make it last a lot longer than it would if they would just let it run it’s course.

I would tend to agree with this assessment. Public support for the bill has fallen to 42% in recent days, and Obama's honeymoon seems to have been short-lived. Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out how we never hear that this is the most-hated Congress in the last 100 years. If and when this colossal excess fails, I believe American voters will finally make it pay. And since the Republicans actually stood strong in defiance of this behemoth, the Dems won't be able to share the blame.

Coming up in our near future, we are going to see our government go hog wild stupid with the programs that are going to be leveled on us the American people. And Obama said it, with this stimulus plan. “I won, and this plan is going to win too.” The trouble is, with this kind of thinking, he may have won, but the country is the loser…..BIG TIME

Only for the time being, Robert. Jimmy Carter got to lead the country to the brink of hell for four years, but then we had 25 years of prosperity once his way of doing things was debunked. I'm not sure why we have to do this experiment again every 2-3 decades, but it seems we do. Maybe the lessons will stick this time.

I Hate Bulk Emails

Chain emails, whatever. In general, I hate them. But keep sending them to me, as they are often instructive.

Someone tells a story that makes someone weepy and sends it out to some people, who send it out to thousands of people. Next thing you know you have thousands of people who buy into liberalism without even bothering to think about it. Here's an example of one I received a few minutes ago.

THIS IS A GOOD DECENT MAN WHO TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE THIS AND: HE SIGNED THE STATEMENT AND: INCLUDED HIS CONTACT INFO:

Oh, good. It's a good thing you capitalized all that, or I might be less inclined to believe that a good and decent man wrote this. This is a rule of liberalism, by the way. Ideas don't matter if you care, and are "good and decent" as defined by liberals. 

READ ON: I'm sure those of you who aren't in the cattle business don't understand the issues here. But to those of us whose living depends on the cattle market, selling cattle, raising the best beef possible... This is frustrating. This will keep us from ever stopping there again, even for a drink.

The original message is from the Texas Cattle Feeders Association American cattle producers are very passionate about this. McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in the USA to support their restaurants. Well, we know that is not so. Our opinion is they are looking to save money at our expense.

Oh my! Trying to save money at your expense? The horror! These must be some really eevil people.

Obviously, McDonald's could write the very same letter to everyone who does not farm cattle, but eats at McDonald's, saying that American cattle farmers are trying to "increase profits" at McDonald's (or the customers') expense.

The sad thing of it is that the people of the USA are the ones who made McDonald's successful in the first place, but we are not good enough to provide beef. We personally are no longer eating at McDonald's, which I am sure does not make an impact, but if we pass this around maybe there will be an impact felt. Please pass it on.

Just to add a note: All Americans that sell cows at a livestock auction barn had to sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cows any part of another cow. South Americans are not required to do this as of yet. McDonald's has announced that they are going to start importing much of their beef from South America . The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as American beef producers, and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't.

The American public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonald's. American ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the world and this is what Americans deserve to eat. Not beef from countries where quality is loosely controlled.

Therefore, I am proposing a boycott of McDonald's until they see the light. I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it comes to jeopardizing my family's health, that is where I draw the line.

Ah, so now we get to the real problem, and alas, the problem is not one of McDonald's greed, but one of big government and its excess regulation. They cite a bunch of alleged problems with beef from other countries, but fail to point out that McDonald's serves more burgers than anyone in the world and has a pretty good history of not making people sick with bad meat.

Americans deserve the choice to eat beef from wherever and whomever they want to.

Another tactic of liberals is to accuse everyone else of being based on fear, while it is they who try to convince you that beef from South America will kill you and that American beef will kill you if it wasn't regulated by government. Why do people fall for this garbage?

I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it to at least ten more (Ed: hopefully you will have ten fewer friends) (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at l east ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over THREE MILLION consumers! I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you? Acting together we can make a difference. If this makes sense to you, please pass this message on.

David W. Forrest, Ph.D .., PAS, Dipl. ACAP Department of Animal Science Texas A&M University Phone (979) 845-3560 Fax (979) 862-3399 2471 TAMU College Station , TX 77843-2471

Much better to blame a business for good business practices, than to blame government for over-regulating its food providers. McDonald's would not be going overseas for its beef if government regulations didn't make American beef less attractive to them, for whatever reason. McDonald's has the right to make those choices. We ought to be working to stop government from having the power to exercise so much control over our farmers.

Obama's Instructions to Congressional Republicans

Last Friday, Barack Obama told Republicans in Congress that if they wanted to have any success with him and his Democrat-controlled Congress they would need to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh - as if Republican politicians ever listen to Rush to begin with.

Today Obama is meeting with some more Republicans, where he plans to get them drunk and pliable so he can offer them more advice.

What sort of instructions and advice do we think Obama will offer up? Frank J. of IMAO speculates in this piece. Here are a couple teasers:

* In bills about the war, stop replacing the word “terrorist” with “Obama’s close personal friends.”

* Don’t get all hung up on this “capitalism” thing.

* Stop confusing my name with Osama. We’re very different. He has a beard and I don’t.

* Stop worrying about whether my cabinet is a bunch of law breakers; their job is to make laws, not follow them.

See the rest - the last one is classic.

Obama's Stimulus Package Contains no Additional Funding for Troops

Not much for infrastructure either. But the plan appears to contain plenty of funding for everything else. From Pundit & Pundette:

Despite spending $550 billion, no funds are provided for troops in Afghanistan or Iraq. The Defense Department estimates they will need $60-$80 billion soon to support immediate combat operations.

When money is being thrown around with such unprecedented abandon, it's hard to understand how the y could miss anything at all, let alone the war-fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq. But they seem to have their priorities.

What would those priorities be? Looks like more big government giveaways:

President-elect Obama has said that his proposed stimulus legislation will create or save 3 million jobs. This means that this legislation will spend about $275,000 per job. The average household income in the U.S. is $42,000 a year.

- This bill provides enough spending to give every man, woman, and child in America $2,700.

- This bill will cost each and every household $6,700 in additional debt, paid for by our children and grandchildren.

- Although this legislation has been billed and described as a transportation and infrastructure investment package, but only three percent ($30 billion) of this package is for road and highway spending.

- Much of the funding within the proposed stimulus package will go to programs which already have large, unexpended balances. For example, the draft bill provides $1 billion for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), which already has $16 billion on hand. And, this year, Congress has plans to rescind $9 billion in highway funding that the states have not yet used.

No money for the troops. Very little money for infrastructure. More money for government bureaucracies. Surely at the cost of $275K per job, it would appear there must some overhead somewhere. That's the Obama way?

Enough Stalling, It's Time for Action

A guest post by regular reader Dell. This is especially timely given the recent, media-whitewashed capture of an Iranian ship loaded to the gills with weapons apparently intended for Hamas. Assuming the MSM ever gets around to reporting this, it will be interesting to see how Obama responds.

Ever notice how the enemies of this country avoid the wrath of the red, white and blue? Think about it. What's the best way to postpone what seems to be the inevitable?

All you have to do is utter two words: "Let's talk".

I'm not suggesting that "talk" is a bad thing, per se. Actually, lack of communication is one of the main reasons this world is as screwed up as it is. However, when "let's talk" is used as a tool, it becomes a very effective method of stalling; thereby warding off the opposition.

Look at how long Saddam Hussein got away with stalling the United Nations. Twelve years of non-compliance with a UN resolution is about eleven years and eleven months too long!

Same thing for Iran, and others. This is how Iran will build and deploy it's nuclear power before anything will be done to stop it. It's how Saddam Hussein almost did the exact same thing.

Even the current government of Iraq got in on the act; stretching out the troop withdrawal agreement "talks" in November, so they could get a better deal with President Obama, rather than having to deal with President Bush.

They suddenly realized that if they didn't reach an agreement with President Bush before December 31st, and there's no extension of the UN mandate beyond that date, the President would have no legal justification to have our troops deployed and order them all home!

The goal for about half of the Middle Eastern coalition of countries is the defeat of Israel, and the only way anyone is going to get even close to doing that is by having a nuclear arsenal. There isn't a country in the region capable of defeating the Israelis with conventional weaponry.

Saddam was certainly working on it – he only had a couple of years to get rid of the evidence (which undoubtedly followed Iraq's fighter jets to Tehran) – and now the Iranians are inching closer and closer…..all the while defying the UN imposed sanctions and now asking President Elect Obama "let's talk".

It's a perfect political ploy that might very well buy the needed time to finish producing a nuclear device (and I'm not talking about an electrical generator, either).

North Korea probably wants to "talk", too. Along with Hamas, Al Qaeda and a host of other participants in the war on terror. What the Hell; it worked for the PLO when Yassir Arafat & Co., refused to reach a Middle East peace agreement, it worked for Saddam for many more years than it should have, and it continues to work for Iran and North Korea to this day. At some point in time – sooner, rather than later – the United States MUST say "enough with the talks, already…let's see some action". We certainly can't wait for the United Nations to say that! Hell would freeze over first.

It's a shame that a nation of people has to suffer because dictatorial regimes put them in jeopardy, but when the fan and fecal material get together, they're going to be the losers.

Now we're saddled with an incoming administration that's bent on the long-winded diplomacy of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- not to mention the orally challenged Joe Biden -- and they're all playing right into the hands of our enemies.

Wake up, Washington. You can talk yourself silly, but it's action we're looking for, not your political rhetoric.

Let's talk…….

The 'Reverend' Joseph Lowery

I don't plan to cross-post too many of my Patriot Room posts here because most of you already know I post there. That being said, I still get about 200 new views a day from my top 24 Conservative Blogs post, and most of them have never been here before. So seeing as nearly 7000 poeple have viewed it, and it's received more than 100 comments, there is clearly some interest in my post here:

Where Does Obama Find all These Racist Reverends?

Was I making a big deal out of nothing, or do you think I was right? Let me know here or there. And check out Lowery's beliefs at the link that I added as an update. It's an eye-opener.

Change? Hope? Or More of the Same?

I'm impressed with the following submission from reader Randy Turner, and we would both appreciate any feedback you may have. Randy, because it's the first time he's posted here, and me because I want to know if I should offer him an official, unpaid job. My standards are not too high. I simply require my unpaid labor to be better than the majority of editorials featured in the New York Times. Have at it...

A guest submission by Randy Turner:

So lately, I have been in a funk and I know it's in no small part due to the inauguration and all of the hype surrounding it. I'm disappointed that, even on the day that should be about celebrating the peaceful transition of power and the historical event that is taking place, Pres Bush continues to receive no respect. As an American, I am extremely proud that our country appears to be beyond race, even if there are individuals who aren't. But any sense of joy that I would have on this day is lost not only in the treatment of Bush but also in my disappointment in what I believe the election of President Barack Obama means.

Change?

We heard it throughout the election that an Obama Presidency would bring change the tired, old politics of yesterday. The hope that Barack Obama is not just a visual difference but that he represents a new, progressive shift in the way our government will serve its people. However, based on his cabinet selections and intimations that he would continue many of President Bush's policies, it's obvious now that all of those promises were nothing more than campaign rhetoric. He's even acknowledged as much (here and here) and seemingly offered that he shouldn't be held accountable for things said during the heat of a campaign. Obama recently said in an interview:

"I want to be realistic here. Not everything that we talked about during the campaign are we going to be able to do on the pace that we had hoped."

I wonder what reality President Obama was living in when he made those promises.  Did we not have two wars and a looming, potentially catastrophic, economic crisis before the election? Indeed, he made it his mission to stoke the fire of fear as he made everyone keenly aware of that reality with his blame for the previous administration. He promised if we elected him he would bring to office the recipe to cure what ails us. He has since been doused with a more fierce reality. Why else would an agenda that was advertised as the solution just four months ago not have the same healing powers now? It's no surprise then that President Obama and his acolytes have since been in the business of expectation management. Sell the bar as being so low that any improvement (such as jobs created or even saved) will be a result of Obama's Presidency. Is that change you can believe in or politics as usual?

 Or same ol' same ol'

Looking past the lack of credentials that would make one believe he is actually qualified to hold this office, Barack Obama's supporters believe he is highly intelligent, that he has an incredible grasp of nuance and is wise enough to listen to his expert advisors. Of course he's intelligent, he managed a revolutionary campaign that allowed a man whose past acquaintances would no doubt have denied him a top secret clearance (judging by the standards I was subjected to). Yes, Pres Obama is a master at nuance; a point that no doubt gives him remarkable aplomb within the political realm. He must be a master politician because, despite little experience by which to judge him otherwise, he has held no other job for as long as the office of which he is about to enter.

So, I like many others can only find in Barack Obama hope. In his inaugural address, President Obama stated that, "On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord…"  I found it ironic that he, his party, and the mainstream media were largely responsible for fueling that fear, conflict and discord; nevertheless, he's right. We have chosen hope because we can't possibly know what he stands for otherwise. He's a political chameleon who, despite his long-standing liberal political roots, suddenly dines with conservative pundits and picks Bush-era realists to run his wars.

A New Hope?

Ronald Reagan famously quipped that the nine most terrifying words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." I guess even the great communicator--who in 1984 won 525 of a possible 538 votes in the electoral college--would have had a tough time getting elected against Barack Obama and his promise to more intimately involve the government in the lives of its citizens.

Today, Obama said, "What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them -- that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."

This is a far cry from Pres Kennedy's "Ask not what your country can do for you…" While Pres Obama asks the country to embody the spirit of service and the "willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves", he contends that affordable health care is not a choice but a right. I guess the founding fathers weren't quite prescient enough to include health care next to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

I will concede one point in President Obama's speech, that we must ask whether or not our government works.  To that I answer a resounding no. As a member of the military, I have firsthand experience dealing with one idea of state health care. While I applaud the individuals that try to make it work, the system, borne of government bureaucracy and inefficiency, is a mess. The same can also be said of social security which will probably be bankrupt before I am able to draw from it.

In fact, I will challenge you to find one system of government that works well or cannot be replaced by a more efficient system. The IRS? The DMV? The postal service? I'll give you one and only one; the US Military. But even the military, filled with the best and brightest this country has to offer and who represent the willingness to serve that Pres Obama refers to, has a number of shortcomings which can largely be blamed on bureaucracy, politics, and other shortcomings pervasive in our government.

And this is why I am concerned. Welfare is broken and outdated. Public schools are failing. Medicare is crippled. Every time the government injects itself, the results are usually off the mark, over budget, and past deadline. But Pres Obama has filled the country with hope. Hope that he and his new administration of change can correct the compounding issues of the day. Hope that his election marks a turning point and suddenly people will be called to action. Hope that ALL Americans will suddenly demonstrate a willingness to work harder and serve others.

Sorry, but if all those things could happen, then there would be no need for government at all. Instead, my pessimism and understanding of the human id as naturally self-serving prevents me from acknowledging that hope. People will continue to look after their own self interests and will continue to find ways to abuse and exploit one another potentially to the cost of $850 billion in wasted government programs that will accomplish little more than holding us more dependent upon the government.

I'm disappointed because by holding on to this hope, it indicates that rather than taking greater responsibility of their lives and risk being held personally accountable, more and more Americans would rather ask the government to step in take over. Are Americans turning away from the belief that hard work and determination would lead to prosperity? Isn't this the spirit that made us great in the first place? I guess I have hope too. I hope I'm wrong.

The Bailout America Really Needs: SUV Owners

A little satire submitted by John T.

      The rise in the price of gasoline has had a tremendous effect on the American people. People who had for years purchased bigger and bigger SUV’s were now trying to get rid of them as the cost to fill the gas tank up skyrocketed. This left a glut in the market of SUV’s, dropping the price precipitously. Conversely, the price of small cars rose and used small cars began retaining their value longer. Those that needed new cars faced different choices. People now wanted smaller, more compact cars and did not want roomy, gas-guzzlers. To make matters worse, the insurance on each type of vehicle remained the same. Larger vehicles cost more to insure due to the amount of damage they could cause to other cars on the road.

      Poorer people could no longer afford to purchase the smaller cars due to the higher prices and instead would purchase used, cheaper, larger vehicles like the SUV’s. State laws requiring insurance increased the already heavy burden of paying to fill the large gas tank. This was a real tragedy of not being able to afford the smaller car with the cheaper insurance, smaller gas tank, and better mpg efficiency. Like everything that is currently wrong with America, I contend that this is entirely the fault of the President, George W. Bush.

        Kanye West famously said, “George Bush does not care about black people.” I feel that he was on the right track, but not exactly correct. He should have said on that benefit the following: “George Bush does not care about poor people.” It is obvious that George Bush wishes to hurt the poor by forcing them to decide between an expensive, small car and a cheap, large SUV that they will purchase the SUV due to their budget constraints. This purchase continues to haunt the owner of the SUV due to its higher maintenance costs, higher refueling costs, and higher insurance rates.

      I have one simple proposal to help those that need help, and that is to help those purchasing SUV’s. With Bush out of office, Obama can help the poor by capping the costs associated with owning an SUV, and increase the taxes on those owning a smaller car. First, a tax on those owning a smaller car by giving a gas discount card to those who purchase SUV’s. When the SUV owner goes to fill-up the gas tank, the owner would simply swipe the discount card or present it to the attendant and receive a cheaper gas price than those people driving the smaller cars.

      Another method to improve affordability of SUV’s would be to cap the prices of insurance on the SUV’s and increase the rates of the smaller cars. The cars that are most damaged in accidents with SUV’s are the smaller cars. Due to the fragility of these smaller cars, they should be taxed more and their insurance rates increased because they are more damaged. The drivers of the SUV’s are not at fault if the smaller cars are totaled every time it happens to be involved in a wreck with an SUV.

      Finally, the simplest way to make the SUV’s more affordable would be to eliminate all sales taxes on the SUV’s and add them to the sales of the smaller cars. People purchasing used SUV’s would be able to afford the cost of gas and the rates of insurance with a moratorium on SUV sales taxes. Due to the price of gas staying very high as well, the purchases of smaller cars will continue to increase due to the affluence of those able to afford the new smaller cars. One need only look around while driving to see that most new cars on the road are the smaller, more fuel-efficient cars.

      It is now time for Barack Obama to step up and help the poor. He can show that our hope in him was not misplaced. He can turn this around and help make the SUV an affordable vehicle for those who desperately need it.

Where Were You?

A guest post by Richard Ridgeway:

Since everyone is so stoked about this historic occasion, I wanted to make sure my thoughts and whereabouts were etched-- etched in stone (as some irrelevant, elitist Senator from Mass might describe it).

My thoughts at the time of 11:00 AM, Central Standard time, January 20, 2009 : It figures. It's the top of the hour and a democratic party controlled event is late, as usual. But The One's inaugural untimeliness gave me a chance to reflect back over the last eight years in the short time span just prior to the Oath of Office.

 

I remembered 2000 as being unsure of an upcoming W presidency. Then 2001 when there was no doubt he was Commander in Chief. Then the clarity of the following years as he was demonized by the leftists and their handmaiden mouthpieces. The total disdain I felt (and still do) towards those that stopped at nothing to bring him down. Then despair for those that were ignorant and drank the vile propaganda Kool-Aid spewed out by his political enemies and the drive-by media. Then I thought of the humbleness and decency he portrayed in every aspect of his presidency. Finally, I thought of the cleansing the conservative movement must undertake. Where's the Gipper when we need him? We shall return.

 

I considered these thoughts as I drove east on a Farm Road out of my small hometown. The last thing I did with George W. Bush as my active president? At 10:59 a.m. CST I sent this text message to my wife: "I love you-- God help America."

 

I promise-- I will never forget...

Obama Re-Defines the Role of Government

Somehow I missed this in Barack Obama's Inauguration speech yesterday, but the President proposed a rather important change in how we view the role of government in America, as The American Spectator notes:

President Barack Obama reframed the basis for action undertaken by the federal government. No longer is it right to ask whether a program is appropriate for Washington to take on. The only question is whether the program is effective.

"The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works -- whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified. Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end."

He forgets, never knew, or doesn't care that effectiveness has never been the first measure of a federal action. It is an important secondary measure once the constitutionality or appropriateness of an action has been determined. But as James Madison asked in Federalist 41:

"Is the aggregate power of the general government greater than ought to have been vested in it? This is the first question." (Emphasis in original.)

When thinking of our federal government, the first question is and always has been whether that government has too much power -- that is, whether it is too big. Yesterday, Obama tossed that question aside in favor of building a government that "works." The Founding Fathers would be aghast. The people should be, too.

When the effectiveness of a federal action becomes the first and only question, trouble is not far behind. Just ask Barack Obama.

"The secret authorization of brutal interrogations is an outrageous betrayal of our core values, and a grave danger to our security," Obama said in October of 2007. He has made clear that harsh interrogation techniques are unacceptable because they violate core American principles. So, regardless of whether they sometimes work, he will not authorize them based on principle.

The hypocrisy is mind-boggling. The ramifications for the future are equally significant if we are going to further switch prerogatives of the people to responsibilities of government.

Around the Web Today

I'm sick of reading about the inauguration, so I thought I'd link you to some of my favorite non-inauguration related posts around the conservative web today:

Top 6 Most Ridiculous Campaign Promises by President Obama (Other than Economics) at Political Castaway

A Neocon Homophobe Racist Adds His Goodbye to Bush at Ace of Spades.

The Taylor Frigon Advisor on Stimulus Plans and Consumption vs Production.

Name that Party at Gateway Pundit.

Global Warming: The Greatest Scam and Lie in History… at Wise Conservatism.

Yeah, it's a slow day if you're looking for non-inauguration posts.

Real World Monopoly Cards

You've got to see the rest of these over at the Conspiracy to Keep You Poor and Stupid. Here are some teasers:

America Wants Obama to be the Next Reagan

This poll shows just how many Americans took Obama's foggy promise of hope and change and projected their own image of what that means onto Obama's empty shirt. When asked who they would most like Obama to be similar to, the winning response was his direct ideological counterpart, Ronald Reagan.

Good answer. But electing the Anti-Reagan is a weird way to go about it.

When American voters were asked which past President of the United States they believe Barack Obama should model his new presidency after, they did not pick Abraham Lincoln or John F. Kennedy, or even George Washington as their top choice. They picked Ronald Reagan.

According to a nationwide survey conducted by Clarus Research Group this past week, Reagan was the top choice among all voters with 26 percent, followed by Franklin Roosevelt with 18%, Kennedy with 17% and Lincoln with 13%."

Most likely, the majority of those who picked Reagan didn't actually vote for Obama. But I know some who did. Well done.

Obama's Inauguration Speech Fails

Scott at Flopping Aces notes how Obama's classless supporters made today's Inaugural Address a failure.

President Obama’s speech was about the character of the American people when united. He presented a list of challenges, goals, and repeatedly pushed for unity, bi-partisanship, and an end to the divisive politics of old.

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics.

Obama’s speech was an utter failure because it was moot. No one was moved by his calls to end partisan attacks and come together as a country; to unite and solve rather than divide for division’s sake. Instead, before and after Obama spoke his first words as President, his strongest advocates and supporters ignored him. They brought their signs calling for the arrest and impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. They boo’ed and hissed. They sang ‘Na-na na na, na-na na na, Goodbye!” and did so with the opposite of best wishes. No, that crowd embraced partisanship, showed no class, mocked and dismissed the support that millions of Americans still have for President Bush, and they did not support their new President. They didn’t oppose him…just ignored him

Then there was the awful, race-baiting hate-prayer offered up by the man who gave his benediction... A miserable Inauguration all around.

Holy Crap; the Arizona Cardinals are Going to the Super Bowl!

As I predicted before yesterday's game, but still can't believe... What a great day for the city of Phoenix!

Coming Next Week to Conservatism Today

Since starting my new gig, I've been struggling to decide what way I wanted to go with this site. One of my main goals has always been to highlight the best conservative blogs, with a side focus being on newer ones who don't have a huge following yet. That is the direction I will be going on Monday (or Tuesday, should the Arizona Cardinals win their way into the Super Bowl and I celebrate too much on Sunday).

I will be highlighting and commenting on the best/most interesting blog posts I read each day. If you enjoy the stuff I write, it is likely that you will enjoy the stuff I read every day. If you are a blogger, particularly one who is not already on my blogroll, feel free to notify me (or remind me) of your blog. You can do it in this thread, or you can email me at conservatismtoday@gmail.com. I will add you to the list that I look at from time to time, and eventually add you to my blogroll if I like what I see. If you don't post regularly (5 a week or more) don't bother - that's the first thing I look at.

My original posts and comments on news articles or columns will be posted at Patriot Room. I am also going to be starting a new "sports bar" at Patriot Room, where you can find my daily blogs posts on sports topics and my predictions on sporting events (read: sports betting recommendations). You can find that here: Publius' Sports Pub

Let me know if you have any input, suggestions, comments, or whatever. Thanks.

  

Bush - I did it My Way

The Bush Presidency in pictures.

Good stuff, scroll through for all 28. We've had our ups and downs, but I always believed and respected that he did what he thought was best for the nation. I don't have a problem with people being wrong sometimes; a limited government complete with checks and balances ought to minimize the damage. I do have a problem with evil, and those who lust for power for their own purposes.

The criticisms of Bush that irritated me the most were those that accused him of not caring about the good of the country. The ones that I participated in had to do with W not being a conservative.

Obama Panders to Wingnuts on War Crimes Prosecution

Obama says he will not rule out prosecuting members of the Bush Administration for alleged war crimes.

US President-elect Barack Obama said Sunday he was not ruling out possible prosecution for abuses committed under the George Bush administration, saying no one "is above the law".

"We're still evaluating how we're going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth," Obama said in an interview aired Sunday on ABC's This Week program when asked about alleged abuses under Bush.

"Obviously we're going to be looking at past practices and I don't believe that anybody is above the law," Obama said.

Methinks he's not a fan of "24."

This is some blatant pandering to the rabid anti-war freaks who helped elect him. We know this because he admits it later in the story. Thankfully, whatever Obama may be, he realizes that he can't follow the agenda of his nuttier followers.

"My instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward we are doing the right thing," he said.

"That doesn't mean that if somebody has blatantly broken the law, that they are above the law. But my orientation's going to be to move forward."

As is becoming clearer each day, Obama's political instinct is usually pretty solid. He knows what he can get away with and what he can't, and that is a relatively good thing.

Conservative Blog Awards

Sadly, Conservatism Today is nowhere to be found. But then, I couldn't muster a vote even though I was a voter.

Hot Air, Ace of Spades, PowerLine and Michelle Malkin are all over the top of these lists. Interestingly, three of those were the top 3 in my post on the 24 Best Conservative Blogs.The other one (Ace of Spades) is my current favorite blog that I don't write for.

My new favorite? Patriot Room of course.

Pelosi's House the Least Open to Debate Ever

The Washington Post doesn't quite say so, but what else can you conclude?

"BILLS SHOULD generally come to the floor under a procedure that allows open, full and fair debate consisting of a full amendment process that grants the minority the right to offer its alternatives, including a substitute." So promised Nancy Pelosi, now House speaker, before her party regained control of Congress two years ago. That fairness, it turned out, was easier to preach than practice.

When they took over in 2007, Democrats set aside their pledge in order to muscle through their agenda during the first 100 hours; their promises continued to prove hollow in the ensuing months. As with the GOP takeover in 1994 and its accompanying pledges of open debate and fair treatment, Democrats' asserted good intentions yielded to the realities of governing in the face of an opposing party more interested in making mischief than law. Democrats brought more measures to the House floor under closed rules -- permitting no amendments -- than any of the six previous Republican-controlled congresses.

It is often stated as a given that Democrats are more open to debate and discourse (or more democratic) than Republicans are, but of course nothing could be further from the truth. Dems know that if they had to honestly debate their ideas and policies, the country would never elect them. And the majority of their proposals would never pass (even with their majority) if the public knew what was buried inside them.

I would say something about our hypocrite Speakerette of the House, but is anyone really surprised by this? The people of the Bay Area elected her assuming she was a liar and a hypocrite. They didn't want her working with Republicans any more than I want Republicans working with her.

Are you as shocked as I am that someone in Washington would note this, even after the election? 

Ten Worst Daily Kos Quotes of 2008

I'm not sure how you narrow it down to just 10, but John Hawkins has identified ten of the worst quotes from the Daily Kos this year.

Here's just one:

"What if Obama is the second coming of Jesus Christ?

I'm not a religious person however I'd like to point out a funny irony that would be better suited for a cartoonist.

What if all of the religious nuts were bashing the second coming of their Christ and they didn't even know it? Fathered by a Kenyan Muslim profit who left after his task was done. To seed a woman who in the heartland of America(a country who "is losing its way"). Then takes him on a journey of awaking across the world, then back home to spread the word of the lord through a process of education an then actions in the community."

You think that's gonna be tough to beat? Hah! That's only #9 on the list. Check it out.

Live-blogging Obama's Economic Stimulus Speeach

President-Elect Barack Obama is speaking at George Mason University, where he is expected to give more details of his proposed economic stimulus plan. The following is my live-blog of his speech, with initial reaction.

In opening comments he refers to this upcoming year as the kind that "come along once in a generation" that mark "a clean break from a troubled past."

Says he doesn't "believe it's too late to change course, but it will be if we don't take dramatic action as soon as possible."

Doom and gloom scenarios follow, if we don't accept the "dramatic action" P/E Obama is about to propose. "We arrived at this point due to an era of profound irresponsibility."

Bemoans the loss of confidence in government, which seems to us to be the only good thing about the current economic downturn.

Obama reminds us of America's greatness, something that sets him far apart from the majority of his Democrat cohorts. It is a big part of why he was able to get elected without offering up any new ideas.

And then come the lines that we've been dreading:

"It is true that we cannot depend on government alone to create jobs or long term growth, but as this particular moment only government can provide the short term boost necessary to lift us from a recession this deep and severe. Only government can break the cycle (sic) that are crippling our economy, where a lack of spending leads to lost jobs which leads to even less spending."

Announces that we will "invest" in priorities like energy and education, healthcare and new infrastructure... Claims overwhelming majority of jobs will be in private sector. We are skeptical..

"We will double the production of alternative (read:costly) energy in the next three years. We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings.." So we really are going to be digging holes and filling them back up again.

Solar panels, wind turbines, yada yada... No talk of increasing nuke plants.

Healthcare - all of America's medical records will be computerized within five years. Government is supposedly good at this sort of thing. 

Offers a $1000 "tax cut" for 95% of Americans. This will undoubtedly be a wealth redistribution in the form of a wasteful paper-shuffle rebate.

A laugher here: "Government at every level will have to tighten its belt." I'm floored by that one.

He understands that some might be skeptical. He tells you that you are wrong.

"The true test of policies we'll pursue won't be whether they are... conservative or liberal ideas, but whether they create jobs, grow our economy and put the American Dream within reach of the American people." I must call bullshit here. I didn't notice many of these ideas, which would end the recession immediately, in the speech.

"Must be free of earmarks," - but yesterday we learned he has a weird definition of what an earmark is. And, of course, Obama has no authority to prevent earmarks, since he lacks the line-item veto.

"We should have an open and honest discussion about this recovery plan in the days ahead, but I urge Congress to move as quickly as possible... Every day we wait or point fingers or drag our feet, more Americans will lose their jobs, more families will lose their savings, more dreams will be deferred and be denied...and our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that at some point we may not be able to reverse."

My interpretation: You must allow me, the Messiah, the One, to save your rear-ends the way I see fit, and must not question the motivations or wisdom behind my decisions, but blindly accept them like the mindless stooges you will soon be. 

UPDATED: Newspapers Announce Return of Journalism, Rip Obama

Now that the election is over and its man has won, the far-left San Francisco Chronicle has decided to return to the principles of journalism that once made for a profitable and halfway readable newspaper:

Lies, half-truths and contradictions: Obama now backs Burris

It's 10 days past the New Year, and Barack Obama has chalked up his first transition contradiction. On Dec. 30, the President-elect said that while he thought Roland Burris was a fine man, the Senate shouldn't seat him....

Today, less than two weeks and a New Year's Eve later, The O changed direction quicker than Darren Sproles against the Indy Colts. Now he's saying that "I'll work with him." Count it as a con-tra-dict-ion!

The not-so-funny part of the story is that the journalist in question apparently thinks it is one of Obama's first contradictions ever, judging by the pre-election coverage of the San Francisco fish-wrap.

I would be starting to feel bad for Obama. Sure, he was gifted a presidency by a head-in-the-sand media. But now he has to live up to his press clippings, an impossible task even for a man without a swiss cheese governing philosophy. It is doubtful that any president in American history has been less equipped to handle the expectations placed upon him.

But let's remember that he asked for it. He'e the one who had the gall to profess himself up to the job. The bigger they are, the harder they fall, right? Nobody's ever built themselves up so big, and no media majority has ever been more complicit in allowing, nay, abetting it.

UPDATED: The Washingtont Times follows suit:

Obama stumbles after smooth road to top

In the past four days, President-elect Barack Obama, once lauded as having the smoothest transition to power in modern history, has learned how hard it is to navigate the political high wire.

His commerce secretary nominee withdrew while facing a grand jury investigating corruption charges; he backpedaled on his Senate replacement; and he infuriated top Democratic senators by failing to consult them on his pick to run the CIA.

The missteps have chafed Capitol Hill allies and proved the difficulty of converting so quickly from candidate to leader of the free world.

This is gonna be fun.

Back in Action, but Looking for Advice

Sorry for the scarcity of my posts lately.

I've been quite busy lately, including coming up with a plan for Obama to stimulate the economy and end the recession.

In all seriousness, as the link above would indicate, I've been working at building my presence at the new site, www.patriotroom.com. I am still figuring out what Conservatism Today will be in the future, and would appreciate any advice on what I could do that would fit with me writing a couple original pieces each day at the other site. Any thoughts?

In the meantime, I will be using it to highlight some of my favorite bits of news and commentary around the web each day. Here's a new site from John Hawkins of Right Wing News:

Right Wing Video

Hawkins does things well, so I expect this to be a good source down the road.