Subject to Change

Boring topic, I know. But, watching our president deal with the debate over spending is providing much insight into his character. So far, Barack Obama has refused to put on his big boy pants and get serious about handling the country’s finances. Instead, he has resorted to fearmongering, finger pointing, and storming out of the room. Namecalling can’t be too far behind.

One talk show caller had a great idea, but I would take it further. He said we should allow the debt limit to increase $100 billion each month, provided the president identifies matching spending cuts. I like the plan, but the Republicans also need to consistently refer to the monthly increase as “Obama’s Allowance.” Even if the MSM trys to downplay the strategy, the imagery should stick. Obama is behaving like a child and he should be treated as one.

What actually happened.

… the liberal agenda seems to be an attempt to roll back the clock to before the industrial revolution on everything except taxes.

Hey, what’s the body count in Libya?

I’m just asking because the MSM isn’t. Seems a bit neglectful, doesn’t it?

We have the opportunity in November, to witness history in the making: the end of the reign of the first female Speaker of The House. I’m looking forward to this momentous occasion with great anticipation. I also hope to witness the transition power away from our first black President in two years.

I sincerely hope that the second female Speaker and black President are more effective than these clowns.

If there’s one constant in American politics, it’s this: America knows how to make the most of a dead Kennedy.

Scott Feldstein writes of the GOP failures over the past eight years. One comment in particular got my hackles up enough that I decided to comment here, rather than monopolize Scott’s space. It’s one of the lamest finger-pointing exercises of the entire Bush administration:

They failed to rescue New Orleans. 

Failed to rescue New Orleans? How exactly does one stop a category four or five hurricane? Nuclear (nucular) weapons, perhaps? From the time Katrina appeared to the time it made landfall was what, two weeks, max? Realistically, what could anyone have done in that time to shore up the badly neglected levees and save the city?

If anyone had predicted the damage Katrina would do there could have been more attention paid to evacuation of the city. Let’s not forget that the local government also failed to recognize the severity of the situation before hand. Do you remember the parking lot full of busses, which would have made fine escape vehicles, all under water? Like the lifeboats on the Titanic, they were merely decorative. In my recollection the mayor didn’t start whining for help until well after his city was sunk, neither did the governor. It was pretty clear to me as a casual observer that the local authorities were clueless and/or stubborn. They deserve to take one on the chin for not knowing they needed help, and then crying to the media instead of making the appropriate effort to get help. President Bush was embarassed in the press for not arriving on the scene sooner. Perhaps living in Texas has made him a bit jaded toward hurricanes, or perhaps he really was that insensitive to the situation. Make of it what you will. He sent FEMA and the Guard to begin the cleanup, which is what he was supposed to do.

Then FEMA “bungled” the cleanup effort. If you want to say that. This disaster was like nothing ever seen before and it should have served as a wake up call. They had difficulty managing manpower and resources, partly because there was such an interest from the general public. Our own enthusiasm was probably something they weren’t prepared for. There were also cross agency conflicts. If anything this goes to show that putting a government agency in charge is a good way to ensure that nothing moves quickly or efficiently. Can you say Universal Health Care? You may remember that I personally offered to accept FEMA work and was never tapped. In retrospect, I think I would have been frustrated at the type of assignment they would have had for me.

Hurricane Katrina is the red herring of the Bush Administration. Nothing much could have been done differently. Even in hindsight we could maybe have saved more people, but not the city. With all the legitimate gripes against this president it boggles my mind that Katrina is even a blip on the radar.

The only reason I keep Pundit Nation in my feed reader anymore is to remind myself what left of sane looks like. The other liberal blogs I can handle, but Mathias is just so far out there on everything (and more). I rarely read beyond the tag line of most of his posts because I’m fairly certain I’m not going to connect with anything. That being said, he’s got something amusing posted today. It’s another lame rant opposing voter ID (blah, blah, blah).

I wanted to point it out because I’m of the opposite mind as Michael and his friend. I find it surreal that I’m not asked for my ID at the polls, when everywhere else in my life I practically need to drop my drawers and show my birthmarks before anyone will talk to me. I flash my ID at the polls even though I’m not required to do so!

It’s illegal for the poll workers to refuse someone for not showing ID. I think it’s still OK for them to ask and give you the right to refuse. Maybe you don’t believe that fraud is widespread, but it would take a fool to believe that it’s not happening at all or that it’s not possible. Asking for the ID, even though its pointless to do so, might be just enough of a challenge to make a few would-be frauds change their mind. An informed voter (or fraud) still has the right to refuse (or lie and stall), so I don’t see the harm in asking.

It bothers me that all someone needs to do is walk into a polling place and say that they are a particular registered voter. I know people who are capable of doing that. The only reason they don’t is that there’s nothing in it for them, so why bother. They don’t vote, period. Campaigns are becoming more and more “us against them,” and this has got to be encouraging some people to be more proactive in crossing ethical lines. With no enforcement up front and weak response afterward, why wouldn’t someone try to cast a phony vote in this state if they were passionate about their candidate? There are plenty of single minded fools out there. I’m sure you’ve met them.

It’s all but impossible to function in today’s society without identification. My son got his first state ID at ten months, so we could fly without fear of being rejected at the airport. All it took was some dedication to stand in line at the DMV, and thirty dollars. That’s hardly out of anyone’s reach. With groups out there willing to help people get to the DMV and pay for the ID, there’s almost no excuse. Besides, you can’t bitch about the once-in-a while cost of renewing a state ID and not bitch about Jim Doyle jacking up car registrations by twenty dollars per year. It makes you look silly.

Anyone who is making a serious effort to cast a serious vote can seriously get a serious ID, unless they seriously don’t belong in a serious polling place in the first place.

Elliot said:

… I was reminded that after Pearl Harbor one of the Democrats’ sainted presidents, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, imprisoned 120,000 U.S. citizens of Japanese descent. Remind me again, after 9/11, George Bush (whom the Democrats paint as the greatest enemy of American civil rights we’ve ever seen) imprisoned how many Americans?

It was actually worse than that. FDR captured and imprisoned Japanese living outside the US, too. I’d like to see someone TRY to explain the difference.

Update: I’m reading the comments over this at Elliot’s place. Liberals astound me. “George Bush” has rounded up a few hundred to a few thousand people suspected of dealing with or BEING the enemy. FDR imprisoned over a hundred thousand people who looked like the enemy. There is no parallel.

If there are people in Gitmo who are truly innocent, I will happily apologize to them or their surviving relatives forty years after the war is over.

Many other blogs are reporting the good news: the surge is working, we’re winning in Iraq. It has also been reported that July was the least deadliest month since last year.

Is anyone wondering why we’re winning? Why wasn’t it news when November of last year was the least deadliest month of the Iraq war? Hmmm… Maybe the surge was just that successful.

I doubt it.

At the risk of being too political on an otherwise pointless blog, I think there’s an easy answer. The democrats need Iraq to be off the table by November 2008. They’ve backed themselves into a corner over Iraq policy, because they misread the results of the 2006 midterms. Instead of interpreting the results as simply frustration with the course of the war, they decided that the American people supported a complete withdrawal. They’ve been hammering that point so hard that they have no credibility on seeing the war through to a successful conclusion.

What they are discovering now is that only a minority of Americans want to pack up our toys and go home. The rest of us want to see freedom succeed in Iraq. It would appear that the 2006 election was a call for action, rather than a call for surrender. The battle lines have been drawn and the democrat mainstream is clearly on the wrong side. They need Iraq to go away. The failure of the withdrawal movement means that they’ll have to resort to Plan B.

I expect the outlook in Iraq to begin looking rosier and rosier over the next few months. By next November you’ll have forgotten all about Iraq because the war will be going swimmingly. American soldiers may even be rising from the grave by then. Iraq will be a shining pillar of democracy, and wouldn’t it be great if a Democrat president(ette) could usher in the new era of peace in the Middle East?

Cross posted: BBA