SOTU and GOP Reponse Thoughts and Notes

Some random rumblings from tonight's events.

The State of the Union Address...

- Obama says he doesn't quit, and he's right...he wants to push forward the same crap that Americans rejected during his first year.

- Capital Gains tax exemption for small business investments? Good idea, but I think I know where this is going to be offset (increases in Capital Gains tax on corporate investments, higher corporate taxes, punitive fees on large corporations to gain populist support).

- This has to be the longest-feeling SOTU ever. It just seems to go on and on. Obama isn't breaking new ground, either. In the second half of his speech, he has randomly started repeating things he said in the first half of it.

- Attack the Supreme Court in the SOTU address? Stupid move, Barry. It's not the time or place for such a move (even if I also disagreed with the ruling he was referring to). What a lack of decorum.

- Towards the last 3rd of the SOTU, Obama just went into straight lecturing. Way to burn any bridges you were hoping to build, Barry.

The GOP Response...

- WOW, McDonnell really outdid himself with the presentation here. Obama likes that podium in front of Congress, you can tell he likes that look and feel of a "leader". McDonnell decided that he would respond to Obama in kind, as the leader of a state. Nice job. He's already topped Bobby Jindal's performance last year without uttering a single word.

- The Gov is in good oratory form tonight, coming across with more personality and vocal skill than usual. He's to the point and succinct without being curt or vague.

- McDonnell really stuck to his guns with "good government" policy stances and some nice nods to the type of federalism expressed by our Founding Fathers. Also, McDonnell struck me as being a bit more aggressive than I thought he might be...but he did it well. Impressive performance by our Governor. He really surprised me.

Overall Ratings...Obama: C+, McDonnell: A-

Obama's meandering lectures and repetitiveness brought down what was otherwise a solid speech for him. Had he left out the whole "Democrats, you've got a majority, so get stuff done...Republicans, you need to be 'bipartisan' and do what we say" bit (ok, I paraphrased), and not been so repetitive, he might have earned a higher mark from me. By the way, the Associated Press (who has been kind to Obama) hits him pretty hard in the fact-checking department. Talk about "truth hurts"...

McDonnell made a memorable impression on me for having such a restricted period of time. He was to the point, made a couple of humorous asides, and was able to accomplish a lot more than many "minority party response" speeches tend to do. Using the GA as a backdrop was a fantastic move on his part. If this was a litmus test to see if McDonnell can be a leader for the GOP going forward, he certainly passed.

Gerry Connolly Gets It...?

Rep. Gerry Connolly (VA-11) had the following comments about the state of passing health care reform.

"One of the worst places a politician can be is to be saying, ‘Open wide and swallow this is good for you,’ even if it is,” Connolly said. “We’re out of sync. I favor health care reform. I favor comprehensive healthcare reform, but not at the price of forcing something down’s the public’s throat that the public finds distasteful and bitter."

This is EXACTLY what a politician should do...know the will of the people. If the public rejects something, you don't do it. Now, I personally believe Connolly is trying to win some votes for November (given he is currently considered vulnerable), but considering he is a "representative" of the people in Congress, he is at least acknowledging that his job is to "represent" the people. For that, I will give him kudos.

(h/t NLS)

Sometimes, You Gotta Admit When You Are Wrong

A good "blogosphere buddy" of mine, Zen (whom I am well-acquainted with through the old Daily Whackjob blog), and I have been battling back and forth over the recent Supreme Court ruling on the rights of corporations and unions when it comes to campaign financing and advertising.

While I still stand that CEOs and the like should not be restricted because of their status and resources, I was convinced by a few of Zen's other points that this was a bad ruling. He brought these two issues to my attention...

- Apparently, this ruling is now putting restrictions placed by the states at risk (federal rulings are supposed to supercede state laws unless deemed unconstitutional). Obviously, it would make sense that nationwide elections, such as the presidential elections, should be federally ruled and regulated from a financing perspective. However, states should be able to decide how their statewide elections are financed and regulated. This ruling effectively throws many state laws and restrictions out the door. This is a case where the federal government needs to step back and step out of the affairs of the individual states.

- The second, and more dangerous issue (in my opinion), is the fact that global corporations now can influence our elections. This means that corporations in foreign lands can influence our elections, and this also opens an avenue for foreign nations themselves to have direct influence. I'm surprised that some on the left ("we are part of a global community") don't see this as a good thing....ok, I kid, I kid. In all seriousness, this is a dangerous precedent to set and it actually makes me quite a bit nervous.

So kudos to Zen for turning me around on this issue. While he and I will probably have several more arguments to have on different points...I can at least admit where I may have been blind to certain things.

I do agree with him on another point...this ruling has opened up a Pandora's Box of potential problems going forward.

Bob McDonnell to Give Response to State of the Union Address

3rd time since 2006 that a Virginia politician has given the response (Tim Kaine in 2006, Jim Webb in 2007)...further proof that Virginia is not only the mother of Presidents, but it is the epicenter of American politics ;)

At least, we like to think so.

Mixed Thoughts on Today's Supreme Court Ruling

Look, I'm all for free speech and I believe that it was a good thing for the 1st Amendment that corporations, unions, and businesses have the ability to participate in donating and advertising for political campaigns. We already knew they were doing things behind the scenes anyway, so now we have it all out in the open as to which business supports which candidate.

My problem is not with the ruling, it's with how irresponsible I believe that these corporations and unions will be with their advertising. Bigger budgets equal more advertising, and I'm not looking forward to spending the fall of 2012 watching commercial after commercial after commercial, over and over and over. I have a feeling this will become the norm for a while.

However, as I said, at least now we'll know who supports what (without the disclaimer of speculation). At least we'll have some transparency on this matter. It will also lead to some interesting posturing in future elections, as a big corporation or industry who supports one candidate may find themselves being targeted if the opposing candidate wins...or if that industry's union supports the opposition.

Should be interesting...

Reason's Best and Worst of the 2000's

There were some good and bad, but the video clip in the article sums it up well.

Worst. Political Decade. Ever.

Managing Editor Jesse Walker's "Best" and Worst" of the 2000's probably hits the nail on the head harder than anything else.

"Worst: The Permanent Crisis. The best thing about the '90s was that they fell between the Cold War and the War on Terror, with no grand themes to empower and enable the political class—or, at least, no themes grander than school uniforms and Marilyn Manson records. The result was the most individualist decade since the last inter-crisis period, the 1920s. Then the Aughts gave us a new existential military threat and a new economic crisis, allowing Washington to enter a permanent stampede mode.

Best: Mash-ups. There was a time when you had rely on hip friends with collections of samizdat cassettes if you wanted to hear a weird, funny remix of, say, Ronald Reagan talking about a can of meat. Now you can't go a day without YouTube overflowing with new homebrewed cut-ups of anything notable a politician, newscaster, or other celebrity did on camera in the last 24 hours. As the government keeps accruing power, we can at least enjoy the consolation prize of holding new tools for mocking the bastards as they screw us."

Damn right!

The Difference

The difference between Republicans and conservatives. Poignant stuff, I highly suggest you read it and the article it is derived from.

Gay Marriage Passes in D.C.

This is all good and fine as far as I'm concerned, except for one thing.

Apparently, the Catholic Church is being forced by this law to extend it's adoption services and other benefits to same-sex couples. If this is true, I cannot agree with this, because I do not think that a religious organization should not be subject to regulations that direct violate that church's doctrine. It's a violation of the separation of church and state, IMO, and if it is part of this legislation...I would be interested to see if it would actually hold up in the Supreme Court.

Other than that, I've got no problems with this legislation. The SoCons will be up in arms about this, but given that D.C. is a very liberal city, this wasn't exactly an unexpected outcome.

(h/t Anti-BVBL)

Reviving Federalism

Common sense to some of us, a compelling argument for others to read.

Ron Paul for Senate or Governor in 2010?

I'm hearing rumors of both. Would be interesting if Kay Bailey Hutchinson does indeed step down. Then again, if she doesn't step down until after 2010, current Texas Governor Rick Perry would be waiting in the wings as well, and he's got solid approval ratings and a pretty decent campaign machine behind him.

I like Perry, I also like Ron Paul, though there are some differences between them and there are some different reasons why I like each of them...both seem to have a pretty good handle on the Constitution and the limits it places on the federal government.

Count Me In...

To think, I was never a big fan of ol' Dubya, but I'd be one of the 44% that would prefer him to Obama right now.

Reid: Take the Weekend Off so I Can do Fundraising

Senate Majority Leader Harry "Weasel" Reid wants the Senate to "take the weekend off" because he sees no point in working through the weekend while debating the new health care bill.

The real reason...he has a $1000/plate fundraising dinner to attend on Saturday, the funds go towards his re-election campaign.

The Senate GOP has rejected this request, stating that they are ready to debate the health care bill as long as necessary and citing Reid's statement that the Senate would work through every weekend until the health care debate was done.

Unpack those bags, Harry, you've got work to do.

A Statement of Complete Honesty

From a comment in my most recent post, a quote from former NBA star Charles Barkley...

Poor people have been voting for Democrats for the last fifty years....and they are still poor.

Just think about it.

Compassion Is Not Socialism...

...but the forcible redistribution of someone else's wealth that they have earned, and the punishment of self-made success, IS socialism.

Period, end of story, it's part of the definition of socialism. C'mon lefties, let's call things for what they are.

A Democrat Rips Media, Dems for Blaming GOP for Housing Crisis

Orson Scott Card lays the truth out there about how the Democrats should be receiving the lion's share of the blame for the current economic crisis, and how the media is pretty much ignoring that fact.

Mind you, Orson Scott Card is a Democrat.

"John Stossel's Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics" on 20/20

John Stossel just gets it.

I love this...we get an hour of primetime dedicated to libertarian principles and the idea of spontaneous order. If you want a great opposition to the whole interventionalist nature of the current government in Washington, you should be watching this. No punches pulled, and everything is explained in an easy way for the masses to digest.

The metaphors fit, the experts providing proof, it's an good explaination of how things aren't right the way they are, and what they SHOULD be instead.

Turn it on now...or find it on YouTube.

UPDATE

It's about time that we hear about the real reasons for the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble pop, and the real impetus for our current economic troubles...in primetime.

I Was Asked an Interesting Question Yesterday...

A good friend of mine at work, who is an as-yet undecided voter who doesn't like Obama or McCain, and would like to see the option of "undecided" on the ballot, asked me one heck of a question yesterday, and it came out of nowhere and caught me off-guard.

He asked "you could go back in time and change one American political event or decision, what would it be?"

He brought up things like Robert Kennedy's assassination, the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a few other events that you generally learn about in History class as examples. I also mulled over a few choices that I considered, such as...

- Telling Nixon's cronies not to break into the Watergate Hotel.
- Not allowing a handful of Mississippi delegates to abandon Reagan for Ford at the 1976 GOP Convention.
- Made the Presidential term limit part of the original 10 Amendments of the Bill of Rights.

However, we changed the subject, and after 10 minutes, I hit him with my real answer.

- I would have stopped America from jumping off the Gold Standard.

This answer blew him away, as I don't think he expected me to go that route, and he had to agree that this was a significant point. As he said, "we would definitely have a strong dollar and a solid, stable economy."

What do you think? What singular event would you change...if you could?

Tired of hearing McCain and Obama???

The 3rd Party debates will be held at Columbia University, and televised on C-SPAN.

So far, the forum will include...

- Ralph Nader (Independent)
- Cynthia McKinney (Green Party)
- Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party)

Apparently Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party nominee, has not decided on whether or not he will show up, as he has stated in the past he wants to debate Nader only (interesting). I think Barr SHOULD show up. Right now, the Libertarians are the leading candidate (as a party) to become the much sought-after Third Party. For him not to show up and at least try to out-debate the other Third Party nominees makes little sense, as it would be a setback for the Libertarians.

John McCain and Barack Obama were invited, but have apparently turned down the invitation. The debate will be hosted by Amy Goodman, host of "Democracy Now!" This will be much to the delight of ol' Finnegan over at hburgnews.com, he's a fan of that show. :)

The debate will be Sunday, October 19th, from 8 to 10 pm.

No word on if the Columbia University security will receive it's own security detail to protect them should Cynthia McKinney decide to show up without her ID.

The Vicious Cycle of Environmentalist Policy

I swear to God, the enviro-activist left has really got us playing "Spin The Wheel, Make the Deal". I'll bullet point this to make it really simple.

- Environmentalist lobby pushes for increased production and research into Ethanol.
- Demand for corn goes up, pushes prices skyward.
- Farmers see the gold mine in corn crops, many switch to corn from wheat. This causes the United States to import wheat to meet it's own needs for the first time since the late 18th Century. Thus, the price of anything wheat-based (everything from bread to beer) goes up.
- Increase in corn price increases price of Ethanol itself, along with feed for cows.
- Ethanol-infused gasoline goes up in price due to increase in Ethanol price...price of beef goes up because farmers must pay more to feed their cows.
- Increased gasoline prices force increased shipping costs, which increase the price of ALL shipped goods.
- Shortage of American wheat production causes us to lose favor with all of the 3rd World Nations we would normally export wheat to.
- Democrats state that we are not a good member of the world community because we're not helping to feed the 3rd World...even though the shortage of American food exports is their fault.

Now, let's say this continues, and either Clinton or Obama is elected President. Here's what happens next...

- Media reports about starving children in Africa, state that it is the fault of "greedy rich people".
- Liberal Americans feel guilty, want the Government to "do something".
- Democrats state they will fix this (and everything else) by raising taxes on the "rich"...even though "rich" to them (according to the circulating Dem tax plan post-Bush Administration) is now any single person making over $33,000/year, or any married couple making a combined $45,000/year.
- More Americans in need of financial assistance for various reasons due to increased prices in goods and increased taxes....so the Democrats spend more money to relieve these troubled Americans. To cover costs, they raise taxes even more.
- Increased costs of production, shipping, and taxation force many companies to take jobs elsewhere, forcing millions of Americans into unemployment...thus repeating the previous bullet point.
- Rinse and repeat.

Scary, isn't it?

Tax Rebate Plan Reaches Tentative Agreement

Looks like a decent way to stimulate the economy without too much governmental "heavy-handedness".

Should the plan go through as it is rumored to stand...
- Tax rebate of $300 to individuals ($600 for married couples), and an additional $300 per child with a cap of $1,200 per family.
- Workers who made more than $3,000 in 2007 are eligible for the rebate.
- Income cap for eligibility is $75,000 for individuals, $150,000 for married couples.

The Democrats were flexible on not extending unemployment benefits for those reaching the 26 week limit and not increasing food stamps, while Republicans were flexible on the minimum income level of eligibility to the point of almost any person earning a paycheck will receive a tax rebate (the original income minimum was much higher in the original Bush proposal). Should the proposal be passed and signed by President Bush, tax rebate checks should arrive in most American mailboxes sometime in June.

Basically, everyone from the working class up to the upper-middle class will benefit from this.

Also part of the Economic Stimulus proposal...
- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be able to buy homes over the current limit of $417,000.
- Tax cuts for businesses, small and large.

For the first time in a while, we're seeing government working together to provide a sensible solution to a major problem...which is "how to stimulate an uncertain economy." I'm glad to see that the Dems went the sensible route, hopefully this sensibility becomes a trend.