Category Archives: Republicans

Super Politburo: Teflon Politics at its Best

Debt, Democrats, Economy, Politics, Republicans

The more pertinent point to make about the Super Committee, and its failure today to come up with “$1.2 trillion in deficit-reduction measures,” is not that it is unelected. Unelected and unaccountable is the hallmark of the shakers and movers of our Managerial State.

A soviet-style, souped-up politburo is making decisions that are generally entrusted to the people’s representatives. That’s the mundane and obvious complaint that has been lodged against the Super Committee.

But who in his right mind still believes that elected representatives in this democracy of ours carry out the will of the majority and protect the minority? (A point belabored in “Into the cannibal’s Pot” is that democracy gives “the People’s representatives carte blanche to do exactly as they please.”)

The people’s business in the welfare-warfare managerial state is relegated to unaccountable, usually faceless bureaucrats, ensconced in enormous bureaucracies. Nothing unusual about that. We’re lucky to know the identity of the “twelve members of Congress, six from the House of Representatives and six from the Senate,” who’re officiating.

Of course this committee was destined to fail. There is no climbing out from under a government debt of $15 trillion when the pols and the people don’t want to downsize their taxpayer-sustained life styles. (Let’s see some leadership from our men and women in uniform; join the civilian workforce.)

The point about the Super Committee is that it has only ever been about Teflon politics: make sure nothing clings to the culprits, members of both Houses and the president. Its achievement—also its aim—is that it puts distance between the debt, on the one hand, and the Congress and the president on the other.

UPDATED: Solyndra Loan Guarantee Program Bush’s Baby

Bush, Business, Constitution, Environmentalism & Animal Rights, Fascism, Republicans, Technology

The way Republicans, in general—and Senators like Orrin Hatch of Utah, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, in particular—are carrying on about Solyndra, you’d think that it was not “President George W. Bush’s administration,” and “the GOP-controlled Congress in 2005,” that cleared Solyndra to participate in this loan-guarantee program, and, even worse, passed the “legislation creating the loan guarantee program.”

Reports Dana Milbank of The Washington Post:

… the Republican paternity of the program that birthed Solyndra suggests some skepticism is in order when many of those same Republicans use Solyndra as an example of all that is wrong with Obama’s governance.
“Loan guarantees aim to stimulate investment and commercialization of clean energy technologies to reduce our nation’s reliance on foreign sources of energy,” Bush’s energy secretary, Sam Bodman, said in a Oct. 4, 2007, statement. It said the Energy Department had received 143 pre-applications for the guarantees and narrowed the list down to 16 finalists, including Solyndra.

Today, Fox News contributor Michael Goodwin affirmed that he had no issue with the underwriting by the government of certain crucial industries, only that funds allotted have to be administered judiciously.

Republican and Democratic members of the “Big-Government Party” sing from the same hymn sheet. Remember: There is no daylight between these factions once they come to power. Before a power grab, it’s all posturing.

UPDATE (Nov. 21): From the Facebook thread: For heaven’s sake: the point is that there is no difference between the Dems and the Rodents when it comes to the role of government. They both believe, irrespective of the founders’ constitution, that it is the role of the government to do just about anything it likes with funds it steals from us. The program created by The Shrub is unconstitutional, wrong, tantamount to theft. So what if thief # 1 opened the account and didn’t use it. Thief # 1 has no right to bolster any industry with my money. Or yours.

UPDATED: Newt Gingrich Slithers Around in Jacksonville

Conservatism, Elections, Morality, Political Philosophy, Politics, Republicans

He was supposed to be courting the tea party in a town hall meeting in Jacksonville, Florida. But Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich did everything but. Google reflects the focus in the media on a single question one toadying attendee asked the speaker; she was bemoaning media bias against Newt, who is the consummate insider. They’ve all neglected Gingrich’s reply to a preceding and very poignant question from a tea partier.

For this reason, I am unable to bring you the question and the answer arrogant Gingrich gave. But the speaker, in essence, told this hard-core fellow that he had asked the wrong question with respect to the candidate’s fidelity to conservatism. He, Newt, would be governing an enormous country and he would, therefore, tailor and aim his policies to holding a 60 percent majority.

Can anyone locate the snake’s exact words?

UPDATE (Nov. 19): Kerry, unless I missed it, the link you provided doesn’t feature the question to which I was referring. It was from a pissed-off tea-partier. He wanted to know how faithful NG would be to tea party principles. Not at all was the sum of the arrogant Gingrich’s reply.

UPDATED: Lincoln Myth Busting

History, Neoconservatism, Political Correctness, Propaganda, Republicans, States' Rights, War

I was one of the folks who contacted Tom DiLorenzo asking him to dispel any developing myths about Bill O’Reilly’s new book, which deals with that killer, Abe Lincoln. After all, who better to dispatch O’Reilly and his Abe-adulating Killing Lincoln, than the Lincoln Myth Buster himself? Writes Tom at LRC.COM:

“Quite a few people have emailed me begging me to critically review Bill O’Reilly’s new book, Killing Lincoln, about the assassination. They do this not because they have read the book, which is a big, boring bag of nothingness, but because they’ve heard O’Reilly spout the neocon party line about ‘Father Abraham’ on his television show and they smell a rat.

I’ve read the book, and it really is a big bunch of nothing. All it is is a narrative of the events leading up to the assassination. Over 100 books are already in print on the subject, and all O’Reilly and his coauthor do is cut and paste what others have written on the subject, but without including a single footnote! The authors also have the annoying habit of writing things like, ‘in his mind, he was thinking that . . . ‘ as though they could know what Lincoln was thinking when he did this or that 150 years ago. This is a standard practice of the ‘Lincoln scholars,’ who also constantly claim to know what was ‘in his heart’ (nothing but love and kindness, of course) in their writings.” …

MORE.

UPDATE: Thanks, Mari, for the Salon link. Of course, liberals would never pan a Lincoln book because it lauds a mass murderer who sundered the Constitutional scheme forever and sicced brother against brother:

“A reviewer for the official National Park Service bookstore at Ford’s Theatre has recommended that Bill O’Reilly’s bestselling new book about the Lincoln assassination not be sold at the historic site “because of the lack of documentation and the factual errors within the publication.”

Rae Emerson, deputy superintendent at Ford’s Theatre, which is a national historic site under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service, has penned a scathing appraisal of O’Reilly’s “Killing Lincoln: The Shocking Assassination that Changed America Forever.” In Emerson’s official review, which I’ve pasted below, she spends four pages correcting passages from O’Reilly’s book before recommending that it not be offered for sale at Ford’s Theatre because it is not up to quality standards.