Politivity

The other day I wrote:

Unless Nicole Wallace arranges for a national media interview where she comes out and denounces all of this and praises Palin, I’m placing the blame for this squarely on her.

Well, Nicole Wallace has done just that. And I give her credit.

I’ve heard a lot of talk today about how the Democrats don’t have a mandate. I find that annoying. You guys have office. Do something with it.

The problem is they don’t always want to be politically responsible. When the bailout bill happened and the House first voted against it, Pelosi blamed the House Republicans - even though with a Democratic majority, her party didn’t need the votes of Republicans.

So the next time you hear a Democrat say they don’t have a mandate, keep that in mind - they want to pass off any of their failed policies as the responsibility of the spineless Republicans who will inevitably and ignorantly side with them on their agenda.

On the flip side, it is a mistake to think the Democrats have a mandate. Like I said in my last post, last night’s vote was not a vote for liberalism. Going forth on a mandate would be disastrous for the Democrats in 2010 or at the latest 2012. Need proof? Check out the elections of 1994 and 1980 for proof.

20% of conservatives voted for Obama.

20% of Republicans voted for Obama.

Those two numbers overlap but are not one in the same.

Also, gay marriage was banned by the voters in Florida, Arizona and California. They did this with a big majority of black voters, who voted for Obama.

So while Obama and the Democrats had big wins last night, liberalism did not win.

Obama has run on a platform of low and middle income tax cuts and cutting wasteful spending. Those are traditional conservative platforms.

Meanwhile, McCain tried to appeal to moderates, which backfired tremendously. Independents voted for Obama and it wasn’t even close.

I wish I had trusted my gut. I admit with the pick of Palin and the talk of some pundits, I got a little too on board with McCain.

I didn’t really want a moderate representing our party.

But Obama should be careful. There are strong signs that the people wanted change but they don’t want liberalism. If he overplays his hand, he’ll be a one term President. Not that I’ll mind.

Obama said that he’s not willing to delay this Friday’s debate to work on a bailout bill because he feels it’s important to communicate to America about the economy.

The problem with that is the future of the economy will be greatly affected by whether or not the bailout bill can be constructed and then passed.

Free market advocates say that the bailout would socialize housing and the mortgage industry.

Supporters of the bill say another Great Depression could occur without a bailout bill.

Either way, a $700 billion bailout is a big deal. And it does affect Obama’s tax plan. He cannot in good faith continue on about cutting taxes to the middle class - or raising taxes on those earning $250,000 or more with the economic conditions the way they are.

Obama has the opportunity to be involved in a bill (or killing a bill) that will have major repercussions for his Presidency. But he says no.

Perhaps he wants plausible deniability later (which, of course, won’t fly with the public when he plays that card).

Or perhaps he just doesn’t know how to conduct bipartisan legislative matters. He’s one of the worst when it comes to doing bipartisan politics, voting 97% of the time with the Democrat leadership.

Obama can pick whatever reason he likes for choosing politicking over leadership, but saying he wants to communicate about the economy is just flat out disingenuous.

Ever since Katrina, Democrats, including Barack Obama at this year’s DNC acceptance speech, have given President Bush a hard time about not going to New Orleans right away.

Of course, President Bush didn’t want to get in the way. He wanted to let the rescue workers do their job.

Now, Obama is saying that Presidents should be able to do more than one thing at a time and that he doesn’t need to go to Washington to work on a bill that may or may not affect our economy facing the worst crisis since the Great Depression.

Here’s two problems with his position:

1. Obama is not the President yet.

2. Obama is a Senator, therefore currently making him one of the rescue workers.

Even worse, Obama has spoken with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and has decided he’ll only come to Washington “if he’s needed.”

But with Congress unable to craft a bill, real leadership is needed in Washington. If Obama is not real leadership, then he’s right - he shouldn’t go to Washington.

And he shouldn’t be President.

Sometimes, Senator, you do have to have to stop multi-tasking to focus on the biggest financial crisis in your lifetime.

Obama has invoked the words of Rush Limbaugh in a Spanish language ad.

He tries to tie McCain to Rush Limbaugh by saying Limbaugh represents Republicans. He says Rush said that Mexicans are stupid and should just shut up or get out.

The main problem with that ad - is that Rush Limbaugh was making fun of Mexico’s laws when he made those comments. He was doing a little monologue parody about “Limbaugh Laws.”

Secondly, anyone who has followed Rush Limbaugh in the past 8 years knows that Limbaugh and McCain do not agree on immigration issues. Limbaugh has been a reluctant supporter of McCain, and he was none to thrilled that McCain won the Republican nomination.

First Obama runs against Bush, now against Rush Limbaugh.

Barack - your opponent is John McCain. Last time I checked, the path to victory requires knowing your opponent and knowing them well. But keep it up, because I want McCain to win!!!!!!!!!!

John McCain was concerned about the fate of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae back in 2006. He introduced a bill into the Senate, the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. He made these comments on the Senate floor on May 25, 2006:

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae’s regulator reported that the company’s quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were “illusions deliberately and systematically created” by the company’s senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight’s report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae’s former chief executive officer, OFHEO’s report shows that over half of Mr. Raines’ compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator’s examination of the company’s accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac–known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs–and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO’s report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO’s report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Barack Obama has been running on a platform of change. Many have pointed to his lack of experience, but I want to point to his plethora of opportunity. Obama had plenty of chances to really change things, but instead, he sticks with the Party - unless there’s an opportunity to be more liberal:

• Obama COULD have implemented a no earmarks policy like Senator McCain, but he didn’t. So far, he has requested $1 billion in earmarks, some of which were requested for clients of lobbyist Hunter Biden (who quit his lobbying firm just last Friday), son of Vice Presidential nominee Joe Biden.
• Obama COULD pay women as equally as he pays men, but he doesn’t. Men on his Senate staff average an $54,397 while women on his Senate staff earn an average of $45,152. On McCain’s Senate staff, male workers make an average of $53,936 while female workers make an average of $55,878 (even more than Obama’s men!) Obama could pay women more by hiring more women to more upper level positions, but he didn’t.
• Obama COULD have reached across the aisle more in the U.S. Senate, but he didn’t. Since 2005, he sponsored 120 bills, but only 26 had Republican co-sponsors. All in all, 522 Democratic Senators co-sponsored his bills, but only 75 Republicans did. During the same time period, McCain sponsored 82 bills and had 120 Democrats co-sponsoring 50 of those bills. Obama could have been more bipartisan, but he wasn’t.
• Obama COULD have voted in a more bipartisan manner in the U.S. Senate. Instead, he voted 97% of the time with his party in 2007 and 2005, and 96% of the time in 2006. Sure, McCain voted 95% with Bush in 2007, but he voted with Bush only 77% in 2005 and 67% in 2001. His highest party line vote percentage is 90%. Obama could have gone against his party as an independent-minded politician, but he didn’t.
• Obama COULD have voted for providing medical assistance to babies who initially survived abortions. He didn’t because he said he didn’t want women to second-guess their decisions. (Even Ted Kennedy supported the federal version of this bill!) He could have had added a provision that placed the baby in the care of social services, absolving the woman of any responsibility. But he didn’t. Instead, he supports babies being left to die in closets containing soiled towels and sheets.
• Obama COULD have stood against language in an Illinois State Senate bill that allowed for comprehensive sex education in Kindergarten. He says the bill was limited to simply educating early elementary students about inappropriate touching. But it wasn’t. He could have fought for more appropriate standards. But he didn’t.
• Obama COULD have stood up to the community organization establishment in Chicago by demanding that terrorist William Ayers not be allowed to be influential on education or be allowed to be a leader in his community. William Ayers was later quoted in the New York Times, on September 11, 2001 of all days as saying “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Obama could have stood up to this guy, but he didn’t. Instead, he served on a board with this guy and also allowed him to host a fundraiser for him.

Barack Obama has plenty of opportunity to go against the status quo. He’s had chance after chance to produce change and fight for reform. But it’s very difficult to find one instance where he’s actually done this. That’s why the quality and not quantity of years in office is really what matters.

Dear Matt Damon,

Recently, you stated you needed to know if Sarah Palin ever banned books from the library. Well, I have good news for you. I know the answer to that.

The answer is no.

I learned that from a variety of sources, including Snopes.com and FactCheck.org, and from watching the news. I’m guessing we watch different channels, though!

As for the “need-to-know” stance about the existence of dinosaurs 4,000 years ago, I assume you’re referring to whether or not Governor Palin believes in Creation. Well, I hope so. She’s a Protestant Christian, as I’m sure you’re aware.

The real question is why you’re so put off by someone who believes in a loving God. Someone who believes that you were not an accident, but actually lovingly sculpted into the talented human being you are.

Why, I ask, is that so offensive to you?

Another question is why do you and so many so-called scientists and politicians so easily believe in evolution? Even evolution requires quite a bit of faith!

Last time I checked, freedom of religion was part of the first Amendment. And for all the tolerance you and Ben and the liberals preach, you sure don’t seem so willing to extend it to Christians!

But hey, at least the Bourne films are good.

Signed,

Nathania Johnson

I’m writing at my son’s Taekwondo gym while he is in class. He recently was promoted to a new belt and, therefore, is in a new class.

At the beginning of class, the kids line up in rows with the highest belts first. The person in the front right spot helps lead the class with Korean phrases that I have yet to understand.

In the previous level, my son was in the front right spot a handful of times. It was a source of pride, having watched him for months train and learn and earn the ability to stand in that spot.

Now, he’s not even in the front lines, sometimes the front two lines if a lot of people have showed up for that particular class.

And that’s ok. Because that’s how leadership works. You’re given a little. You work at it. You learn it. You master it. Then you go to the next level.

So, when people talk about how Palin has little experience or try to say McCain took experience off the table by his choice of Palin, I see the comparison as apples and oranges.

Palin has had a steady rise through the ranks of Alaskan leadership. Obama has only been a Senator, on the state level and now as a freshman on the Congressional level. He’s not even a leader in his party’s majority stake in the Congress.

And there’s nothing wrong with that. But it does speak to his inexperience. As has been noted several times, being a Senator is not exactly executive experience.

But I know you might be tempted to still say that Obama has been U.S. Senator longer than Palin has been Governor.

To that, I invite you back to the Taekwondo gym. The students move at their own pace. Every 10 weeks, there is a belt test where they have the opportunity to move to the next level. They don’t have to. And there’s nothing wrong with that. But they won’t be awarded the next belt until they have the experience. (They can even earn stripes for their belt to show where they are in the experience in the journey to the next belt.)

Governor Palin is ready for the next belt. She has accomplished many things as Governor, yes even in the first year and a half. She’s a quick study, and always has been. There are anecdotes of that stemming from throughout her life.

For the most part, Barack has not been someone to even stand in the front right spot. He has often supported the leadership of others. His work as a community organizer led him to believe that you have to have political office to create real change. So, he went to law school to set things in motion. During his time as a civil rights lawyer, he did mostly behind the scenes work. And now, his ideas may seem new to those who have never voted before, but they are what the Democrat party has for decades stood for.

Governor Palin has gone against her own party.

The one piece of legislation that Obama’s surrogates point to is all about expanding the legislation of a bill that was passed in the early 90s.

Governor Palin has introduced several of her own initiatives while Governor. She reversed the cut in spending for special needs children and instead tripled it for the three following years (we’re in the midst of that). She negated an old boys network agreement with the oil companies for the natural gas pipeline in order to have a fair process of choosing the vendor to construct it.

Obama, as a Freshman Senator, is in a position where it’s difficult to get much done. The Freshmen classes of both the Senate and the House of Representatives have traditionally had a difficult time of accomplishing much. It’s not just an Obama thing. It’s a Freshman thing. The senior members of Congress want you to earn your belt.

Obama simply hasn’t earned enough stripes yet. That alone doesn’t make him a bad Senator. But it also doesn’t make him the ideal candidate for the Presidency of the United States either.