Comments Posted By jackson1234
Displaying 161 To 170 Of 190 Comments
IF GOVERNMENT MAKES LIFE EASIER, DOES THAT MAKE IT BETTER?
Sorry for the addition, but to be more succinct, I appreciate this as a theory and your point is taken there. Yet as a reality I tnink the premise is false when it is that government makes life easier in a broad sense.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 28.01.2009 @ 14:38
Nice thoughts, but a question. Does statism really make life "easier?" For example, national health care will make health more available in the abstract but the rationing it ultimately entails makes it more difficult to obtain services. Perhaps a better example will be the left-wing's takeover of the banks. It may make mortgages "easier" in the sense of availability but the onerous regulations that will result certainly will make home ownership more difficult--annual reports and financial statements, affirmative action compliances, and so forth.
Yes, there is a trade-off between the "easy" life of statism and the freedom to choose. But I think it is somewhat untrue that government makes life "easier." Ask anyone who has had both an FHA and conventional loan which was "easier" in the long run. I don't think our freedoms would have remained intact so long if the alternative had been so much better.
Americans love liberty and are restless. If, and I'm not convinced it will happen, statism wins out, the people will revolt when the onerous hand of government suffocates and stifles. That has been this nation's history and even polls show people remain that way. The Left is terrified how the public will react if the so-called stimulus plan fails. They should be because the public has let them release this canary into the coalmine. If it doesn't fly out all hell will break loose.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 28.01.2009 @ 14:28
THOUGHTS ON OBAMA'S FIRST WEEK: THE GOOD, THE BAD, AND THE UGLY
Chuck:
"Your hypothesis would require a time machine."
I hope it is a better machine than the one Harry Reid took when he declared the Iraq War lost.
The Democrats own this debacle, and will pay heavily come 2010 as the fraud and incompetence it represents leaks out. That doesn't require a time machine, only Republicans who have decided to make sure the public knows which soon-to-be discredited party and president owns this massive fraud.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 28.01.2009 @ 11:18
If this grand larceny passes, and the GOP holds firm in opposition, Barack Hussein Hoover will be your president. Perceptions do matter, but all the propaganda in the world can't make someone who is unemployed or underemployed not realize the stupid economic mistakes the Democrats are about to make caused it. I wouldn't get near this abortion with a 10-foot pole.
This isn't betting on failure. It is acknowledging this type of massive, discredited spending fails. This will be the Democrats' economic Iraq.
If Obama wants to release his inner left-winger, let it rip. He has all the votes he needs in a Democratic Congress, and he should go fish there. The GOP isn't biting, the public is starting to see this as the grand larceny it is and to remember why they kicked the Democrats to the curb in 1994.
I think I'll stay with the GOP position. I know Obama wishes it would change, and not because he wants more Republicans in Congress and one in the White House in 2012.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 27.01.2009 @ 14:26
Neal:
"Because if it DOES fail, and Obama can pin the failure on Republicans tying together the shoelaces, the ODS victory will be pyrrhic. (Use the dictionary.)"
The precise reason to oppose this scandalous waste of money is that it will fail, based on history. Republicans have taken the right approach--make certain the public knows this is Democratic legislation, and when it fails, Obama will have no one to pin it on other than himself and his party. This is the fast track back to huge congressional gains in 2010 and the neutering of a president who seems clueless when it comes to fundamental economics.
What's more, it's the right thing to do. Obama--or more precisely, intransigent congressional Democrats--have the rope around their necks. The public may want this to be successful but it will know full well who to blame when it is not.
You can see the fear in the eyes of Pelosi, Reid and Obama. Good. This is horrible legislation. There's no John McCain to act as a human shield on this one. They own the stimulus boondoggle, and no amount of obfuscation (use a dictionary or ask someone who can) will work.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 27.01.2009 @ 13:12
I pretty well agree.
Nonetheless, the tremendous likelihood that the stimulus plan will fail--and the GOP's recent rediscovery of financial responsiblity--probably will accelerate Obama's popularity decline even more than the volatility of the Cult of Personalty. The Republicans should be applauded for making certain this horrific boondoggle has a Democratic face. If you can't get John McCain to carry water for bad Democratic legislation, you know it is, well, really bad.
If, God forbid, a released Gitmo detainee should carry out or be involved with a terrorist attack on the homeland, what is a stupid, pig-headed political decision would become a disaster. I don't see Mexico City as a factor one way or another. Maybe the Doug Kmiecs might get upset with Obama, but most people will disagree but chalk it up to "politics."
Holbrooke is indeed a good choice. I didn't think the same of Panetta, but Holbrooke does come with a history of success. I agree Mitchell is a poor choice, but he's apparently got a thousand or so cards in the Democrats' Rolodex.
Finally, I would tend to dismiss the inaugural ugliness but those seemingly minor things do effect public perception.
Good work, Rick.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 26.01.2009 @ 13:53
WINNING WARS AND FIGHTING TERRORISM WITH 'HUMILITY AND RESTRAINT'
How do you think he will know if it’s too soon?
That's actually a legitimate question and didn't deserve such a jerk response. I'm certain (although not positive) Patreus and--God help us--Panetta will provide an assessment on the potential. The question will be if Obama really cares or whether he will leave troops in Iraq if such a potentiality exists. Based on left-wingers from my distant youth, the answer would be he would pull out despite the danger of genocide.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 22.01.2009 @ 14:16
It is odd that military actions that advance American interests are condemned by the Left, and feel-good interventions into nations where we have no stake are lauded. But let's take it a step further. The Left loved our intervention in Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing. But if Obama foolishly pulls out of Iraq too soon and genocide ensues there, I don't expect them to support reintervention. Think Cambodia. These people are beneath contempt.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 21.01.2009 @ 11:20
I hope this represents another triumph over entrenched racism. I fear it represents the triumph of affirmative action over a color blind society. We'll see soon enough, but if it is the latter rather than the former, expect racially tinged politics to get worse rather than better.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 20.01.2009 @ 11:14
I WILL MISS THE LEFT'S BUSH DERANGEMENT
Yes, Obama is to be commended for the recent distance he has put between BDS and himself. Obama certainly has many motivations, including the full knowledge that the right could return the favor. I actually don't think it will, nor will it do so for reasons below, but unfortunately BDS worked out quite well for the left and they know it. Even without his failings, Bush would have been reduced to rubble after the unhinged, relentless attacks you cite.
I think even BDS sufferers know the above. After the election, in a typically shallow and totally asinine move, a letter campaign was started by Obama supporters to voters who supported McCain or other candidates. A request for peace was made, kumbaya and all that shit. This also would indicate BDS was a tactic, which I think it plainly was.
Obama can be hit hard, and very hard and legitimately on the issues, and given circumstances he likely can be defeated in 2012. I wouldn't suggest any other tactic. But the left is afraid of what it could have unleashed. Good. Fucking-a good. Let them squirm.
Ed Driscoll has a good piece this morning about how BDS was a way to become accepted in the leftysphere. I think that's spot on as a kind of group insanity took over where the more unhinged your rants against Bush, the more links and praise you got from lefties.
That "belonging" probably forced otherwise relatively sane lefties like Klein, Yglesias, Drum, and a few more to join in. They just didn't have any credibility with their readers unless they piled on. And if they ever had any praise whatsoever for Bush (and I read those guys pretty closely and cannot recall any) they would have been skewered by everyone else.
ed.
Comment Posted By jackson1234 On 19.01.2009 @ 11:16
