Archive for the ‘Candidates’ Category

Here’s another look into the struggle between President Obama on one side and General Petreaus and Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the other on whether or not to remove U.S. troops from Iraq within 16 months. General Jack Keane said recently on NewsHour (see video below) that “no one wants to squander those gains [we have made in Iraq].” He is implying, of course, that anyone [named Obama] who precipitously withdraws the troops would be making a foolish mistake.

Investigative journalist Gareth Porter counters that argument by giving all of the credit for the stability in Iraq to Iran and making a wild claim that senior leadership in the U.S. military is engaging in a “false narrative” by claiming that they had anything to do with it. Of course, in using that kind of fantastic logic, it would follow that 1) Iraq’s stability would not be undermined by an early troop withdrawal, and 2) that Iran, not the U.S., are the good guys in Iraq.

Interestingly, Porter made the same argument to President Nixon 40 years ago by proposing that the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam would not cause a bloodbath. He was wrong then and he will be wrong again.


Read Full Post »

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich said today that the U.S. economic downturn is much worse than political leaders admit and predicted the recovery will take three to five years.

The financial meltdown points to “a much more profound problem than people think” as American industries and education have lost ground to China and India, Gingrich said.

The former Georgia lawmaker told a reporters’ breakfast that the one upside to the crisis is that it might prod reform.

“This is frightening enough that you could have a genuine national conversation about fundamental change,” he said.

Source. If I’ve learned one thing following the GOP, it’s that we should answer any mention of “China,” “India,” “reform” or “national conversation” with one hand on our wallets and the other hand on the Constitution. It boggles the mind to imagine the sort of “fundamental change” Gingrich might be calling for. His comments were just vague enough to be frightening.

The article goes on to describe Gingrich’s evolving view of Sarah Palin, hence the category.

Read Full Post »

Dirk Who?

The field of possible GOP candidates for president in 2012 is getting so crowded (Wikipedia now lists 22 names) that name recognition starts becoming a problem. One of the names with which you might not be familiar is Former Secretary of Interior, former Governor and former Senator Dirk Kempthorne of Idaho.

My five minutes of research has turned up a strong conservative voting record, a Rubber Dodo Award and a mistress.

Read Full Post »

Newt Gingrich did not, as the title of this article suggests, attack Obama for caring too much about civil liberties.  Here’s what Gingrich said:

“I think people have a good reason to be worried about the overall tenor of the way they’re trying to move back to ‘civil liberties matter more than protecting America.'”

What he means is that coddling America’s enemies by giving them the same rights that Americans are guaranteed in the Bill of Rights impedes our government’s efforts to protect its people. I understood that. The issue has been debated so often that he took the liberty of using some verbal shorthand. Perhaps if he had spelled it out for the presumptuous, that “protecting the civil liberties of our enemies matters more to the Obama administration than protecting Americans,” he might not have been characterized as a fascist.

Of course, that would have made no difference to the multitudes of Americans who paradoxically believe that America’s enemies deserve to be protected by our constitution, no matter that our government’s ability to protect its citizens would be (and perhaps now is) greatly diminished by doing so. We certainly live in strange times when people care more about protecting their enemies than protecting themselves.

Read Full Post »

Calgon, take me away:

Asked if her new political action committee was an early signal that she is running for president in 2012, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin replied: “No, not at all, not at all, no. It’s helpful to have a PAC so that when I’m invited to things even like to speak at the Lincoln Day dinner in Fairbanks, to have a PAC pay for that instead of have the state pay for that because that could be considered quasi-political.” Uh-huh. She’s being something less than completely honest here, but we can forgive her.

Basically, ignore her first sentence (“No, not at all, not at all, no.”) Everything else she said is true.

Read the rest and follow all of the links here.

Read Full Post »

Money quote:

There is a lot of stimulus and growth in this bill – that is, of government. Nothing in this bill stimulates the freedom and prosperity of the American people. Politician-directed spending is never as successful as market-driven investment. Instead of passing this bill, Congress should get out of the way by cutting taxes, cutting spending, and reining in the reckless monetary policy of the Federal Reserve.

Read it all here. I disregarded Ron Paul during his 2008 presidential bid, because for the first time in decades a libertarian had a microphone … and the American people were listening. Yet he squandered his time (“squandered,” or so I thought) talking about closing down the Federal Reserve. Closing down the Department of Education. Closing down the Department of Energy. If anyone does, a then 10-term Republican representative knows the value of principled baby steps.

But as it turns out, the Federal Reserve has arranged for our worst recession in decades.  Inverted interest rates have led us from one asset bubble to the next for nine years now.  No Child Left Behind is its own punch line.  Oh, and, by the way?  How is that Department of Energy treating you now?  Revolutionary monetary policy, far-reaching shift in government operations are starting to smell pretty good right now.

Read Full Post »

Michelle Malkin is calling Senator John Cornyn and four other Republicans on the Senate Finance Committee who voted in favor of sending Timothy Geithner’s nomination to the full floor for a vote the B.O. Republicans (B.O. stands for either “Barack Obama” or “Bend Over”, take your pick).

He followed that up by voting, along with just 10 Republicans, in favor of Geithner’s confirmation. (One couldn’t be sure that he would do that. After all, he voted to hold up Hillary Clinton’s unanimous nomination for legitimate reasons, and then capitulated by voting to confirm her after all.)


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »