Meet the new Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
It looks like Michael Steele finally got what he was after. Today Steele was elected the new Chairman of the Republican National Committee. I have mixed feelings about the elevation of Steele to the top position of running the Republican Party. I originally backed Ken Blackwell for the top position, because Ken is a staunch conservative and was backed by most well known social and fiscal conservative groups in the country. I voted for Steele two years ago when he ran against Ben Cardin for the U.S Senate here in Maryland. It was during that senate race that I discovered how vicious and racially vile liberals try are. I wonder if Republicans were to write down every racist comment liberals posted about about Steele and then redirected them at Obama, I wonder how long liberals would take before labeling their own statements as "racist"?lol I've seen the "compassionate" comments liberals have been making about Steele since his acceptance speech earlier today. It was to be expected. Steele might not be the rock hard conservative I wanted as an RNC Chairman, but I will support him the best I can as a conservative first and Republican second. Michael is going to have a lot on his plate dealing withe the intolerant and closed minded left while also rebuilding the Republican brand post during the post George Bush era. More then likely I will have a chance to talk to Michael tomorrow to congratulate him. I believe Steele will be the shot in the arm the Republican Party needs right now. Michael is a very articulate communicator, and doesn't need a teleprompter like some other guy I know. If he stirs the party back to the right, Republicans will regain power very quickly. If he does the opposite, he will fail. It's really that simple. Michael Steele should fit in nicely as the RNC Chairman. In Maryland he was the chairman of the Maryland Republican Party. So he already has the experience to hit the ground running from day one. I wish I knew how kooky liberals believe that the election of Steele is some how trying to copy Obama. Oh well, I guess I will go back to trying to figure out how to make 2+2=76. Liberals logic, got to mock it. Congrats to Chairman Steele. To those that want to obstruct, GET READY TO GET KNOCKED OVER!!! I LOVE IT!!
posted by Alpha Conservative Male at 9:40 PM
26 Comments:
As you know I backed Steele. I don't see eye to eye with him on affirmative action... but if Steele feels some affirmative action is needed I can't argue it completely and I doubt it's a place he draws pride from. Cold turkey is not going to happen with any candidate on affirmative action.
I can't rule out Steele based on differences on a few issues. Steele comes with a party that thinks like me and as you have stated he's a guy who can talk without a teleprompter like some we know.
I won't back off the idea of a Huckabee\Steel ticket in that order. I don't think anyone can watch Huckabee talk and say he would not be an effective communicator and debater.
It may be early in the planning... but we need a ticket that can win in 2012.
When I see Obama I see a racist when I see Steele I don't. Funny they have the same skin color.
I think Steele is an honest and "likable" guy and will do well as the RNC chairman.
CB;"I originally backed Ken Blackwell for the top position, because Ken is a staunch conservative and was backed by most well known social and fiscal conservative groups in the country.
Kenneth Blackwell??? If there's anyone that knows how "not" to run an "honest" and effective campaign, it's Ken Blackwell! When Chip Saltsman sent RNC committee members copies of "Barack the Magic Negro", Blackwell defended the stupidity. About the idea of Obama creating and saving jobs while the country is suffering an economic crisis, Blackwell had this to say;
"Creating 600,000 new jobs might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House."
I've noticed that many conservative politicians and pundits have adopted a "win at any cost" attitude, including yourself Tyrone. Commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have even said that they "hope and pray" that the countries economics woes get's worse.
At times it makes me wonder about the previous administrations efforts during it's "lame duck" last few months. According to Bush Sr., Limbaugh was a "close friend" and ally of their family and the administration. The idea that Limbaugh is hell bent on an Obama administration crash and burn, gives me cause to believe that the Bush's might have similar, if not the exact attitudes.
When embarking on a journey, and you're told you will encounter burning bridges, scorched earth and freshly defecated heaping pile's of crap, wouldn't it be safe to assume that someone doesn't want your journey to go well? My next question would be "who" constructed the hazards? Another safe bet would be, the same people that are saying "I hope your journey isn't go well"!!!!
You can read his plan on http://www.gop.org. It was updated just a couple of hours after the election ended. I have only read chapter 1. From what I read I think his ideas may be good. I'm not sure when I will get a chance to read the entire plan. It looks pretty long.
Tyrone or anyone, what is it about Steele that is not conservative? The only thing I can think of is the issue of a group that he was in that he resigned from. I'm serious. I have no clue about why people would question his conservative values. I thought that either him or Blackwell would have been good. What are the differences between the two?
At last a true black american.
Pamela,
I follow this blog very close and It's actually on of my favorites.
I have a man who just emailed me and accused me of not being a "true" conservative because I backed Steele.
To answer your question please visit this link and make sure to read the comments section and see Greg's comments and listen to his audio clip in a link he provided or click his name and it takes you to the same clip.
Michael Steele Is The New GOP Chief
I think the audio clip will help you.
If Michael Steele was running for President and won the Election instead of Obama the same Liberals both Black and White would accuse him of being a sellout and a traitor and saying he doesn't relate to blacks. Liberals are vile hateful two faced hypocrites. I don't care If I'm repeating myself I'm just sick of their two-faced duplicity going unchallenged and not being called out for what it is duplicity!
JARNC05 "As you know I backed Steele. I don't see eye to eye with him on affirmative action... but if Steele feels some affirmative action is needed I can't argue it completely and I doubt it's a place he draws pride from. Cold turkey is not going to happen with any candidate on affirmative action."
I agree jarnc, I had a feeling that Ken Blackwell was a long shot in getting the Chairmanship. Steele isn't a liberal and is much more conservative then Duncan was. So I guess we will have to wait and see. I was Steele on Fox News Sunday going after Obama. It was a nice sight to see, and I'm encouraged. Steele is an awesome debater, and he isn't affraid to stand toe to toe with the mainstream media.
jarnc05 "I can't rule out Steele based on differences on a few issues. Steele comes with a party that thinks like me and as you have stated he's a guy who can talk without a teleprompter like some we know."
Even Ronald Reagan wasn't perfect. So your right, we have to accept Steele's flaws as a person that is not perfect like everybody else. When he does do wrong, he should be held accountable though.
jarnc"I won't back off the idea of a Huckabee\Steel ticket in that order. I don't think anyone can watch Huckabee talk and say he would not be an effective communicator and debater."
Huckabee is a non starter for me. To me he will always be the guy that helped McCain win the nomination over Romney. I would rather Steele stay the Republican chairman. For him to run in 2012 even as a VP for any Republican candidate will be red meat for the media and the Obama drones.
jarnc05 "It may be early in the planning... but we need a ticket that can win in 2012. "
We need a ticket that can stand up on conservative principals and is able to communicate them. That is how Republicans won elections. They need to go "old school" in order to regain the white house and congress. Obama fooling the script of Carter to perfection, so I have no doubt about him losing in 2012, it will though depend on who he's running against. Right now, we need to focus on the midterms next year jarnc.
jarnc"When I see Obama I see a racist when I see Steele I don't. Funny they have the same skin color."
That's probably because Steele and Obama have two completely different backgrounds and were raised totally opposite of each other in values, morals etc.
p allen "I think Steele is an honest and "likable" guy and will do well as the RNC chairman. "
I'm I reading this right allen? lol You didn't take a few swigs of the Obama happy juice before you wrote that did you?lol I'm actually shocked. There are times that you can be rational allen. I will count this moment as one of them, and I also agree about Steele.
p allen "Kenneth Blackwell??? If there's anyone that knows how "not" to run an "honest" and effective campaign, it's Ken Blackwell! When Chip Saltsman sent RNC committee members copies of "Barack the Magic Negro", Blackwell defended the stupidity. "
Allen I can't count the many dirty tricks that Democrats have played on Republicans and Democrats defended them. As for Barack the Magic Negro, the parody was funny.
Normally the people that were upset over it didn't know the basis of the parody or who it really was making fun of. It wasn't about Obama but Al Sharpton. Why didn't liberals get upset at the black editor for the LA Times that wrote the article in the first place calling Obama that allen? If a conservative white editor would have written the same story, it would have been front page and network news.
p allen "About the idea of Obama creating and saving jobs while the country is suffering an economic crisis, Blackwell had this to say
"Creating 600,000 new jobs might help cement Virginia in the Democrat column, making it harder for Republicans to retake the White House."
Top Democrats have said similar comments when Republicans were in power allen. When Hurricane Gustav was in the gulf coast that threatened the organization of the Republican Convention, the former DNC Chairman said "god is on our side".
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/gustav_apology_by_dem_god_on_o.html
You remember that right allen? Democrats wanted Iraq to fail for political reasons. Democrats back in 2004 were the ones saying that the economy was the worst since Herbert Hoover, and that was when the economy was still good. So what you are saying is said on both sides of the aisle. As for Obama's pork bill, it doesn't matter if it passes. It will do more harm to Obama and the economy them help either one.
p allen "I've noticed that many conservative politicians and pundits have adopted a "win at any cost" attitude, including yourself Tyrone. Commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have even said that they "hope and pray" that the countries economics woes get's worse." Maybe you can tell me allen, how is spending tax payers money as a part of the "stimulus" on condoms and contraceptives is going to fix this economy.
wrong as usual allen. I've actually said this before. I'm about winning on principal not popularity. That's a big difference allen. When Republicans ignore the formula that got them to the dance as a majority party in congress and controlling the white house, they aren't trying to win at all costs.
p allen "Commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have even said that they "hope and pray" that the countries economics woes get's worse. "
Allen, I listen to Rush. I heard him say the ENTIRE QUOTE that you are trying to reshape and revise. Limbaugh said that he hope's Obama's socialist policies fail. I agree 10000% with him. This whole flack over limbaugh is childish and extremely two faced by liberals. For eight years liberals didn't want Bush to succeed. They didn't respect him as president nor "gave him a chance". Now all of a sudden, their own behavior is suppose to be ignored like it never happened just because they have a liberal socialist in the White House? I don't think so. So the official response of Limbaugh and others is "We support the president just not his policies".
Sounds familiar allen?
p allen "The idea that Limbaugh is hell bent on an Obama administration crash and burn, gives me cause to believe that the Bush's might have similar, if not the exact attitudes."
Limbaugh also went after Clinton for 8 years as well. Liberal talk show hosts savagely went after George Bush. I don't recall any liberals defending Bush from other liberals allen. Maybe you were the one defending Bush right? It's erie that Obama would tell Republicans not to listen to Limbaugh. Who does Obama think he is? For him to tell grown adults who they can and can not listen too is beyond arrogant. If Limbaugh truly wanted Obama to fail, all he would have to do is actually support Obama's stimulus bill. This bill if passed will make Obama a one and out president just like Carter. The reason is because of the massive inflationary impact that bill will have on the valuation of the U.S dollar in 2011 going into 2012. Limbaugh is actually inadvertently trying to help Obama by trying to save him from his ignorance of not knowing how the economy works.
jarnco5, thanks for the tip. I just listened to it.
I think the people on the audio calling him a RINO is a stretching a bit. We are dealing with amazing differences in the Republican Party. As the head of the RNC he is going to have to deal with those that are pro-abortion, the Log Cabin Republicans and others.
As a black person I have a problem with people saying that the only reason Steele was picked because he was black. He is qualified even though some might not agree on every view. Steele is way better than in his views the current leadership. I read the first chapter of his plan. He did mention that the party needed a respect for life in that chapter. I hope to finish reading his plan this week. It looks pretty long. It may be easier just printing it out.
pamela "Tyrone or anyone, what is it about Steele that is not conservative? The only thing I can think of is the issue of a group that he was in that he resigned from. I'm serious. I have no clue about why people would question his conservative values. I thought that either him or Blackwell would have been good. What are the differences between the two?"
Pamela, maybe this will help
http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2009/01/04/the-case-against-michael-steele/
I'm willing to give Steele a chance of some inside stuff I know about him. Steele was very conservative when he ran on the ticket of Robert Ehrlich for Governor. Ehrlich was the moderate Republican. When Steele ran for the U.S Senate against Ben Cardin, Steele has to tone down his conservative image because Maryland is a two thirds democrat state. The three biggest concentrations of people are in Baltimore City, Prince Georges County, Montgomery County, and Baltimore County. All of those areas except for Baltimore County are solidly liberal. The Steele campaign felt it had to water down Steele's image a bit to appeal to the freaks in this state. Blackwell never deviated from his conservatism when he ran for the Senate. Blackwell is a more forceful and direct champion of conservatism then Steele. I believe Steele does believe in Global Warming. That will have to change.
When I first heard him on Q&A (C-SPAN program) in 2005 he was lieutenant governor. When I heard him then he sounded like a hardcore conservative. This has been my point of reference ever since. Of course climate change fka global warming were not in the picture too much like nowadays. I don't remember him mentioning anything about it during that interview.
Thanks for the article and for the audio. They have been helpful. I will read his plan on the RNC site and try to come to a conclusion from that. Again he is trying to blend a bunch of people. He will have an interesting time of it for sure.
Michael Steele is a good man. He is human as we all are, but he can confront the claims from the Democratic Socialist and tell it like it is without being called a racist. They will call him a traitor, but he can call them the same. They want to talk with terriorist, replace free speech, take away guns from homes used for protection, replace the US Army with community organizers. In 1930 Hitler did the same thing! Hitler was a Democratic Socialist. The Democratic Party in America has been taken over by George Schwartz aka Soros. He was born a Jew who changed their name to escape the gas chambers. He came to America and got rich and says he owns the Dem. Party. When he was in Europe, he bragged about showing the Germans where Jews were. Karl Marx was also a Jew whose father became a Luthern to practice Law. When he was in France, he wrote the communist Manifesto. Hitler hated Communism, thus hated Jews because most of them became Communist. Jews were good at business and owned most of the business in Germany. This enraged Hitler because the blonde, blue eyes werer superior, and most Jews were not. I see the same thing happening under our Democratic Socialist government. Fairness doctrine will be paramount to the destruction of freedom of speech. The Dem. Party and Muslims are behind this endeavor! WAKE UP AMERICA! wHICH GROUP WILL GO TO THE GAS CHAMBERS THIS TIME!
p. anthony allen,
Government does not create jobs, the private sector does. We are a nation with a government not a government with a nation.
Conservative black in ATL;"p. anthony allen, Government does not create jobs, the private sector does. We are a nation with a government not a government with a nation."
In America, jobs are created by who ever creates them, be it government, the private sector or "the black market." Inevitably, most of the money made and spent finds it's way into the overall American economy.
Contrary to the mock-like rants and ridiculous paranoia, only a "fool" would think America could, or would become a socialist state.
If you are a born and bred American, and think that "the government" is going to demand that you give up your guns...you are a paranoid idiot.
If you are a born and bred American, and think that "the government" is going to demand that you give up your freedom of speech...you are a paranoid idiot.
If you are a born and bred American, and think that "the government" is going to remove, and then replace the capitalist system, with a socialist system...you are a paranoid idiot!
I, for one am a CAPITALIST! I wholeheartedly believe in the American capitalistic system. Yet, I am a pragmatist and a "liberal" thinker.
I see a failing economy brought on by self serving pious individual greed, crooked Wall Street bankers, corporate exec. fraud, Bernard Madoff type schemes, crooked politicians and lobbyists, ect... And through all of that corruption, I still can believe in the capitalist system!
Even though I don't agree with all the things that are included in the Presidents "stimulus plan", I do sense that he is trying to take the country down a different path. The path may very well lead to the quelling of corporate fraud, sleazy and corrupt Wall Street traders, unethical politicians and the like.
What I'd really like to see is government action taken against corrupt crooked C.E.O.'s and bankers who use their positions to enrich themselves and their friends. Frankly, I see nothing wrong with the government stripping the wealth of thieves. Hell, the government does it all the time to convicted drug dealers.
"Commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have even said that they "hope and pray" that the countries economics woes get's worse." (PAA)
<
<
That's an outright lie.
Not by you, of course, but from whoever you heard/read that from.
Since I didn’t hear that comment first hand, I had to go to CNN to get the full context of those remarks.
It turns out that in a segment on the Democrats’ current $850 BILLION “stimulus package,” Limbaugh said, in part, this; “If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down and I’d be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. I don’t want – look, what he’s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, to the automobile industry to healthcare. I DO NOT WANT the GOVERNMENT in CHARGE of all those things! I DON’T WANT THIS TO WORK! So I’m thinking of sending a reply to the guy, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four – I hope he fails.”
Limbaugh’s fundamental point was that he hopes Obama’s policy goal of expanding governmental control over the economy will fail.
That seems like a laudable position. I don't want to see a bigger federal government with more control over the private sector either...we HAD that back in the 1970s and it delivered STAGFLATION! Double digit interest, inflation and unemployment rates. No tahnks!
Those who’ve interpreted this as Limbaugh wanting America to fail, are obviously erroneous in their interpretation and that's almost certainly due to the woeful ineptitude of those misinterpreters rather than any real malice on their parts. I'm at least pretty sure of that.
"When embarking on a journey, and you're told you will encounter burning bridges, scorched earth and freshly defecated heaping pile's of crap, wouldn't it be safe to assume that someone doesn't want your journey to go well?" (PAA)
<
<
That may be an apt description of the Clinton turnover to G W Bush, but it's not close to the Bush turnover to Obama!
In fact, the Obama administration has noted that the previous administration was one of the most gracious in recent history.
The "Rockefeller" Moderates in the GOP are as keynesian as the Liberal-wing of the Democratic Party and only differ over who should get the help - the Rockefeller wing favors appx 80% of the help to businesses and about 20% to individual relief, the Liberal-Dems favor a reverse ratio.
BOTH are wrong and the Conservative Republicans and Blue Dog (Conservative) Dems and "Zell Miller Dems" (like myself) are right - cut the Corporate tax rates make doing business easier and jobs will be created and prosperity will flow from that.
The idea that the Bush administration tried to sabotage the Obama administration is a fantasy not backed up by any reliable reportage.
JMK;"That's an outright lie.
Not by you, of course, but from whoever you heard/read that from."
Okay fine...alright, well and understood. Perhaps I am speaking "figuratively" and perhaps Limbaugh should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Yet, my interpretation of what he said,(and that of others who doubt Limbaugh's intentions) use's an analogous of all of his statements.
Here's the overriding, and key part of Limbaugh's statement, which for me consummates the idea that he only hopes for failure;
So I’m thinking of sending a reply to the guy, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four – I hope he fails.”
He didn't say, "I think the bill or policy will fail". He didn't say, "I hope the policy will fail". Limbaugh said in very certain terms, "I HOPE HE [OBAMA] FAILS!!!"
Limbaugh told the National Review;
"Obama’s plan would buy votes for the Democrat Party, in the same way FDR’s New Deal established majority power for 50 years of Democrat rule, and it would also simultaneously seriously damage any hope of future tax cuts. It would allow a majority of American voters to guarantee no taxes for themselves going forward. It would burden the private sector and put the public sector in permanent and firm control of the economy. Put simply, I believe his stimulus is aimed at re-establishing “eternal” power for the Democrat Party rather than stimulating the economy because anyone with a brain knows this is NOT how you stimulate the economy."
Limbaugh could have made it clear by keeping his tone and comments focused on the policy, rather than on the politicians or what he see's as the politics involved. Yet he doesn't! To Limbaugh, it's all about politics and the politicians he despises.
Hell, in the Senate the bill has yet to be voted on, restructured, full Senate debate, let alone a dime spent (from this particular bill). Why is Limbaugh so keen on the failure of the bill?
More Limbaugh;
"If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down and I’d be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him."
Key word here is, "IF"! He says "if I wanted him to succeed". And who does he think he is to encourage any politician about political policy? (baited question there...look out)
There's an old adage in the hood that goes; "Don't hate the Play'a, hate the Game". Limbaugh's focus and his own words shows that he is more concerned with the president, (the play'a) failing than a plan, (the game)that will work!
Lets say you invented a drug that you believed could help heart patients. But I believed the drug was no more effective than drugs presently available, and that heart patients should stay with drugs they're using. Publicly I set out all the reasons why I believe heart patients should stay with the drugs they're using, but in closing I also add; And by the way, "I hope the inventor and the drug are failures"!
Would you then think that my "fundamental point was that I hoped that expanding drug policy will fail"???
Knowing Limbaugh and his "Ann Coulter like" hatred of "Liberals", I would put it past him to feel, think and hope for an Obama crash and burn.
JMK;"The idea that the Bush administration tried to sabotage the Obama administration is a fantasy not backed up by any reliable reportage."
I said, "it makes me wonder about the previous administrations efforts" and, "it gives me cause to believe that the Bush's might have similar, if not the exact attitudes.
The transfer of powers are always "gracious" and kind. As far as the Clinton to Bush transfer, you have to keep in mind the 2000 election debacle. It wasn't until December 12 that the U.S. Supreme Court decided Bush v. Gore. As far as a less gracious than usual transfer, you'll have to show me where and who reported it.
"Here's the overriding, and key part of Limbaugh's statement, which for me consummates the idea that he only hopes for failure;
"So I’m thinking of sending a reply to the guy, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four – I hope he fails.” (PAA)
<
<
Actually, the KEY PART (the part that defines the MESSAGE) is THIS: "What he’s (Obama's) talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, to the automobile industry to healthcare. I DO NOT WANT the GOVERNMENT in CHARGE of all those things! I DON’T WANT THIS TO WORK!"
I agree I DON'T WANT that to work either.
Yes, even IF a more socialistic or redistributive set of policies COULD work (all evidence says they CAN'T) I wouldn't want them to work.
I don't share the view that "less disparity in income is a good thing."
I think we'd agree that a thoracic surgeon SHOULD earn several hundred times what a cop or teacher or construction worker earns....same for a high profile attorney or a CEO or CFO.
Productive people, who respect Liberty don't worry about what the other guy has, they're too busy trying to do the best they can.
IF the economy were a "fixed pie," with only a certain amount of wealth available at any given time, THEN the idea that "economic justice" demands a more equitable dispersal of that wealth MIGHT have some credibility.
Alas, alack and woe is us, for that is NOT the case.
We DON'T have a fixed or static economic pie, we have a very fluid or dynamic economic pie, within which wealth can be created and contracted...and it stands to reason that those who produce the most wealth (people who drive businesses and industries) SHOULD benefit the most from those prodigious efforts.
So, yes, Limbaugh is RIGHT in wanting the current stimulus Bill, the current trend toward Keynesianism to fail....ANYONE who respects LIBERTY ("the grinding burden of full self-ownership and the responsibilities that come with it") and reviles license ("all people being able to do whatever they want, so long as they don't harm others") agrees with Limbaugh on that score.
JMK;"I agree I DON'T WANT that to work either."
I think we all agree that the economic situation we are currently facing is in need of some sort of action. Since September of last year business closings and job losses have increased and continues to mount.
Be it this president, or any other, our government is attempting to quell the economic problems through means that they have seen fit.
To say that, "I don't want it work", or "I hope our president fails", is the same as saying, "I hope the economy get's worse and more jobs are loss, more foreclosures occur and that the country suffers a worse economic situation than the Great Depression". If the government is attempting to fix the economic situation, frankly, there's no other way you can explain the idea of wanting the government to fail.
If your idea is that the government should do nothing and completely stay out of the economy, then say so! Yet if that is what you think will help a failing economy, just take a look at the last 4 months...
p allen "In America, jobs are created by who ever creates them, be it government, the private sector or "the black market." Inevitably, most of the money made and spent finds it's way into the overall American economy."
You silly!!lol The black market is still the private sector. It's just the illegal private sector but the private sector none the less allen. The economic engine our country is in the private sector period. The government can not employ every working citizen and have a functioning economy allen. It just doesn't work like that.
P Allen "So I’m thinking of sending a reply to the guy, but I don’t need 400 words, I need four – I hope he fails.”
If Obama was a conservative allen, do you think that Limbaugh would wish for him to fail? You should know that the answer is no. Of course Limbaugh wishes him to fail. Why would a conservative wish for a die hard socialist to do well in changing this country into a socialist country? I mean come on allen DUH!!How many liberals wished George Bush would succeed during his 8 years allen? If Sarah Palin becomes President in 2012, are you going to tell me that most liberals won't wish for her to fail allen? Come on, be for real. We all support our ideologies on how we believe our country should be. That isn't going to change. For liberals to get upset a limbaugh is beyond hypocritical when they were going it themselves against the former president from 2000 to 2008.
Should I wish for Obama to succeed in passing his 1.3 trillion dollar pork bill that will collapse the dollar and lead to massive inflation allen? You tell me.
P Allen" "If I wanted Obama to succeed, I’d be happy the Republicans have laid down and I’d be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him."
Once again, why would a conservative republican sellout his principals to support a radical liberal democrat allen. If the roles were reversed, liberals wouldn't sell their views out in order to advance the agenda of a conservative. It's just because it's Obama, conservatives are suppose to cut their nuts off and hand it over to barry. Sorry but not happening.
P Allen "I, for one am a CAPITALIST! I wholeheartedly believe in the American capitalistic system. Yet, I am a pragmatist and a "liberal" thinker."
Name the capitalist elements of Obama's "economic stimulus" plan allen if you can.
jmk "So, yes, Limbaugh is RIGHT in wanting the current stimulus Bill, the current trend toward Keynesianism to fail....ANYONE who respects LIBERTY ("the grinding burden of full self-ownership and the responsibilities that come with it") and reviles license ("all people being able to do whatever they want, so long as they don't harm others") agrees with Limbaugh on that score."
I wish for this bill to fail to the tenth power jmk lol
jarnc05 "As you know I backed Steele. I don't see eye to eye with him on affirmative action..."
That's why David Duke has gone nuclear in his attack on Steele.
I agree Steele is a good choice overall. He is definitely conservative on nearly all points I know of. As I mentioned briefly in my blog, the only issue I have is the center-left Affirmative Action stance. I don't believe pigmentation or eye shape or plumbing should play any role in who gets hired and who doesn't. But if that's the only place he and I disagree, he's a winner in my book.
RB;"Name the capitalist elements of Obama's "economic stimulus" plan allen if you can."
I don't even know how you could have thought of, let alone form your fingers to type such a question... Can you say "fat government contract"? I can see several companies earning's doubling and tripling.
"I think we all agree that the economic situation we are currently facing is in need of some sort of action." (PAA)
<
<
Perhaps, but I don't believe transferring nearly $2 TRILLION from taxpayers to banks and other businesses that acted recklessly once the government mandated, then guaranteed to back the bad debt they wrote, doesn't sound like a particularly effective plan to me.
The talk today about Western Europe's "workable socialism" and America's "failed free market" is astoundingly and stupefyingly DUMB.
America hasn't HAD a free market since about 1912.
in FACT, America has the same "regulated market-based economy" that all of Western Europe (including Sweden and France) have!
Yes, they are more Keynesian (more highly regulated, taxed and with a larger welfare system), BUT our economy and theirs are basic "regulated market-based economies."
So we have to be clear about what failed here and why.
What failed WASN'T the "free market," since we haven't had a free market in America in nearly a century.
What failed was the "regulated market-based economy." The SAME economy that Japan and Western Europe all have.
WHY did it fail?
Was it due to Supply Side policies, erring too much on the side of the market?
Not at all.
In fact, the previous administration was one of the most regulatory in recent memory. The Sarbannes-Oxley regulation, which was one of the biggest regulatory reforms ever, was signed into law by the Bush administration, an administration that was, aside from a couple of tax rate cuts, as Keynesian as his father's, whom derided Reagan's Supply Side policies as "Voodoo economics."
G W Bush was a very Keynesian President who supported big government programs (spent more on social spending, even adjusted for inflation, than LBJ did) and the regulation of business by government.
The "last four months" have seen an orgy of bailouts and government spending brought on by the Barney Frank/Chris Dodd-led subprime mortgage mess that froze the world's credit markets.
In fact, one of the few areas that the Bush administration failed to regulate was when it called (in 2003 and AGAIN in 2005) for more regulation and oversight of Fannie mae and Freddie Mac, to no avail.
What led to the current credit crisis was that government first mandated "more subprime loans to lower income Americans," then placated banks and mortgage brokers by guaranteeing all those loans through the GSEs (Fannie & Freddie).
Once the government guaranteed all that bad paper, the banks and mortgage brokers went on an orgy of greedy "loan speculation" - writing hundreds of billions of dollars in bad debt...and since the government was backing it all, "Why not?"
When Greenspan spoke of his surprise that "bankers would act against their own best interests," he was wrong...they DIDN'T act against their own best interests! Since the government was backing their loan speculation, which resulted in "credit socialism" - the creating of credit (a form of wealth) out of thin air, they had NOTHING to lose, and EVERYTHING to gain!
They made insane profits off those loan fees, etc. and now they're getting all that bad debt wiped away courtesy of us.
THAT'S what failed!
Not any "de-regulation," but wrong-headed regulation and the government backing/guaranteeing the bank's bad debt.
A lack of government spending hasn't gotten us into trouble, quite the reverse, eight years of government OVERSPENDING has!
The last (and ONLY) U.S. Congress to cut the federal budget was the Gingrich Congress....and those cuts delivered some of the best economic times we've ever had and generated all those budget surpluses of the late 1990s.
Since then, EVERY subsequent Congress has eschewed that model and spent ever more.
So NOW, we're trying to spend and regulate our way out of a crisis caused by overspending and flawed regulation (like the Turbo-charged CRA of 1995).
The CBO just released a report that noted that doing absolutely nothing would almost certainly result in less harm ("less negative economic growth") over the next ten years.
I have no doubt the people in the current administration mean well, just as the ones in the last one did, it's just that their policies seem wrong, as they are out of whack with what's worked (Gingrich's federal budget cuts).
I believe Limbaugh probably believes as I do, that we'd rather see all this over-spending and over-regulation fail QUICKER rather than agonizingly slowly.
I'm apparently not nearly as worried as are a lot of Conservatives, as I KNOW that there's nothing that can be done today, that can't be undone tomorrow, once it fails.
Post a Comment
<< Home