Comments Posted By Gregg
Displaying 1 To 10 Of 13 Comments
I went to dnc.org. It looks like they like to be referred to as the Democratic Party. But the individual politicians are known as democrats. I don't think it was juvenile silliness, just an oversight. Most right leaning commentators probably don't spend much time on the DNC website, and republicans belong to the Republican Party.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 14.10.2009 @ 20:55
I believe it is foolish to compare President Obama’s failure to secure the Olympics for the city of Chicago and the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to the conflict in Iraq. It might be fair to compare them to the show throwing incident in Iraq. The President and his supporters have shown on numerous occasions before and after the election to have a fairly thin skin when it comes to criticism, but they have been and continue to be quite willing to lay blame quickly. They also have a habit of finding enemies everywhere. Oil companies. Insurance companies. Fox News.
No one has died or would have died as a result of losing the Olympic games to Rio. These events are relatively inconsequential in the world of politics. There is no enemy to give aid and comfort to in criticizing the President. I remember many democrat politicians publicly questioning the intelligence of the President, the strategy and tactics employed in combat, and the soldiers themselves while the country was actually fighting an enemy.
I think a reasonable comparison would be Afghanistan. President Obama campaigned on fighting more aggressively in Afghanistan. Will Republicans be more supportive of him than the Democrats were in Iraq? That will be a worthy test of blatant partisanship. Democrats have not been held accountable for many statements. I have a feeling Republicans will. Hopefully they will be more rational and circumspect.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 14.10.2009 @ 14:58
NO WONDER BUSH WAS A FAILURE AS PRESIDENT
One other thing. GWB's Treasury Secretaries were abysmal. O'Neil, Snow and Paulson were all out of their element. The first two were pretty much unqualified in my humble opinion.
Paulson had a lot on his plate. I don't know if I have ever seen anyone tell us what would have happened if TARP had not passed. It is easy to look back, but I would have preferred less government involvement. It is easy for me to say that though, I wasn't responsible.
On the other hand, after a misfire, GWB did nominate excellent Supreme Court justices. He should be commended for that. I also, don't buy the opinion that he only made decisions that helped him. Iraq was a tough call. The democrats were allowed to wash their hands of it. One result of that situation is that no politician will risk his neck on a future tough call.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 15.09.2009 @ 17:57
I remember, in general, being less than enthused with the candidacy of Governor George W. Bush. Although he espoused many conservative positions, every once in a while a moderate (at best) opinion would slip out. The term "Compassionate conservative" is probably the best known. What exactly does that mean? It was a phrase developed to placate the moderates among us at the expense of the Republican Party's conservative base. To this day, I don't know if he honestly believed (or cared) if it was necessary to say or it would sound good to moderates.
Once in office things did not necessarily get any better. His economic policies were inconsistent. He made mistakes in foreign policy. Many of his appointments were obviously politically motivated. I was extremely disappointed Keynesian policies the Bush administration advocated the last few years.
He was however, treated unfairly by the media and democrat politicians. After eight months of the Obama administration, the double standard is obvious.
Taking all of this into consideration, there was no other candidate that would have been a better choice from a conservative perspective. Alan Keyes showed us what happens when he is the candidate. After that the conservative pickings were slim. Looking at his opponents in the general election there was no contest. Mainstream politicians have figured out that they do not get elected by telling people what government services and subsidies they will eliminate. Looking forward, who will be the conservative standard bearer? The view is not obstructed with limited government free market types.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 15.09.2009 @ 15:20
A PRESIDENTIAL COMMISSION ON TORTURE WOULD SATISFY NO ONE
How do you counter undisguised hatred? What exactly was the virulent reaction of his supporters? To acquiesce to the constantly shifting democrat positions would have been ludicrous. Interestingly, they do not seem to have the stomach for dissent now that they are in a leadership position. It is now "Un-american" and "Evil mongering" to dissent.
President Bush was responsible for defending the country. Many of the politicians complaining today were advocating the same policies during that time. It is one thing to question a policy after the fact. It is quite another to brand your political opponents as criminals years later.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 30.08.2009 @ 15:49
The socialists must love this. We spend all of our time trying to figure out which one of us is ruining the country. Meanwhile, they have the White House, the Senate and the House, and they still blame Republicans in general for all that has gone wrong and currently prevents them from "Correcting the failed policies of the last eight years." Moreover, we attack the one area of the media where we actually have an advantage.
GWB acted like a gentleman on countless occasions after juvenile, baseless and often irresponsible attacks. The Democrats responded with more attacks. The vast majority of these attacks usually do not apply to politicians of the Democrat persuasion. We cannot depend on the media to point out these inconsistencies. They will not change their tactics until they are defeated. We must defeat them. Ideally, our superior ideas would prevail. Unfortunately, emotion helps - a lot.
The tactics advocated above might work in a general election on the planet Vulcan, but here an earth passion and, yes, even anger drive elections.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 29.07.2009 @ 13:03
WATERBOARDING: THE S.E.R.E. STRAWMAN
Michael:
Show me the paper trail outlining the bounds of behavior for the Viet Cong interogators and prison guards. How many broken bones does KSM have? Can he lift his arms over his shoulders?
Also, I believe it is a testament to our own history and morality that these men are still alive. They received far better treatment than captured U.S. soldiers. What treaties have we signed with Al-Qaeda? What commonly-accepted bounds of morality do we share with them?
I stand by my statement that this is a policy disagreement. One side wants to not only change the policy (or do still want the latitude if necessary?) but vilify its opponents in the process.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 25.04.2009 @ 15:51
So if we defend enhanced interrogation techniques we are defending torture - I take that to mean all torture. Spare us the hyperbole. There are myriad forms of torture beyond what was approved. If you are going to assume that the authors of these memos were bloodthirsty sadists bent on making these people suffer nothing but excruciating and potentially life ending pain, then we might as well end the conversation here.
This is a policy disagreement. One side though, wants to not only change the policy, but villify their opponents. That is what might open the pandora's box.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 25.04.2009 @ 15:07
Personally, I doubt the our nation's enemies are revising their plans based on the latest news, but I really have no way of knowing. I too have the luxury of pondering this subject from a safe vantage point. I might view this topic differently if a relative had died before, during or after the WTC attacks. Confronting evil isn't easy or clean.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 17.04.2009 @ 10:27
THE POST MY DETRACTORS WISH I HAD WRITTEN ABOUT THE TEA PARTIES
bsjones -
I appreciate your thoughtful responses. I do not mean to nitpick, but I guess I will. You mentioned that the private sector is responsible for the misallocation of resources. What role did government policies with respect to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac play in this misallocation? What role did the Fed's historically low interest rate policy over roughly the past decade play in this misallocation?
The conventional wisdom that their has been significant deregulation during the past decade and little to no government intervention during that time are simply not true.
I haven't heard too many government (esp. elected ones) or Federal Reserve officials take responsibility for any mistakes. I would argue that it would almost be impossible to quantify their portion of the misallocation. I could also argue that the markets these organization's operate in are hardly free of government intervention.
Comment Posted By Gregg On 28.02.2009 @ 16:01
