HR1 House Republican "No" Vote: Principled Opposition or Negotiating Tactic?

I was more than pleasantly surprised to find that ALL of the House Republicans voted "NO" on the "Stimulus" Package and I'm working on thanking them via email and fax. But.....please pardon my suspicious nature. Along with many others, I've seen this movie before and sequels are rarely an improvement upon the original.

The original? First round vote on TARP. Those of us who were opposed from the start knew that all it would leave behind was scorched earth. Set in flames in its path were Constitutional principles, Capitalism, and the few remaining shreds of a decent legacy for Pres. Bush. Attached to his reputation was the future credibility of Republicans who would attempt to engage in defending free market principles.

Many of us who shut down the Capitol switchboard and website in unprecedented numbers to inform Congress of our opposition to the bill's passage were very heartened when the House voted the bill down. Just following the vote, House Republican leadership stepped in front of the cameras. It would seem reasonable and common sense to expect a shot across the bow of both George Bush and Congressional Democrats; a definitive statement, a line in the sand. These naive hopes soon evaporated like mist. Actually, we were all slapped in the face. And our faces are pretty swollen and sore after the last eight years.

Minority Leader Boehner and Congressman Cantor explained the reason for the bill's failure. Was it principled opposition to a damaging, massive spending bill? No! It pains me beyond imagining, but I actually, for once, found myself agreeing with Barney Frank. Apparently, Republican feelings were hurt. If only Nancy Pelosi had been nice. Her highly partisan speech given on the House floor moments before the vote was given the reason for the bill's failure. Pelosi's scary little show would have righteously diminished her if left alone. Cited as a rationale for voting against a damaging bill, I was left disgusted and disillusioned.

Unfortunately, lack of conviction by many politicians does NOT surprise me, but it was not unreasonable, under those very particular circumstances, to expect something different and something better. Literally everyone in front of a microphone and TV camera said the situation was unprecedented. The word "crisis" and phrase "Great Depression" were being used every few minutes at this point, but Nancy Pelosi and the Republican leadership's behavior was absolutely politics as usual.

For people who had just started paying attention or those not fully informed, it would have only been right to question whether or not the "crisis" was as serious as portrayed if Congress was behaving in the same manner as has become the custom.

Trouble is, the crisis was and is unprecedented. Anyone capable of doing a minimal amount of research can discover that the United States of America is in big trouble financially. That makes the infantile rantings of Pelosi and the impotent whining of Republican leadership even more despicable. It is the equivalent of Nero fiddling.

Knowing at the first round of votes on TARP that a real crisis did loom, the common sense, logical thinker must ask the following question: Was Republican leadership completely so totallyl ignorant of the facts or did they simply really care so little about the outcome that they were only out to play politics? Or, far worse, were they aware of the true circumstances and happy to engage in consolidating even more power into the Federal government? In other words, it was either incompetence, negligence, or a power grab.

Whatever the reasons, these maneuverings were used as a marginal negotiating tactic. But once the bill failed, the public had to be convinced. The media was only too happy to help. Coverage, including Fox News, became palpably and suddenly Orwellian. Everyone from Shepard Smith to Bill O'Reilly lectured viewers on how they just didn't "get it". Even Sean Hannity seemed muffled. The only person appearing clearly skeptical about TARP on the whole network was Neil Cavuto.

A few prominent voices on Conservative talk radio, namely Rush, Glenn Beck, and Mike Gallagher were unambiguously opposed. Outside of that venue, the message was clear: "Main Street doesn't want to bail out Wall Street" and the average citizen just "didn't get it".

Many Republicans and a few skittish Democrats, used their "no" votes, as noted, as a minimal negotiating tactic. Little changed in the bill (it only went up to $850 billion, that's all) and of course, it passed. (I'm still wondering how the manner in which the vote took place was constitutional, by the way. As a spending bill, it should have originated in the House. Since it failed in the House, how could it be moved on to the Senate?)

In any case, any Republican who voted for TARP, in either house of Congress, helped Barack Obama win the presidency, and castrated all Republicans for a long time to come. It is my concerted opinion that John McCain nailed his campaign's coffin shut, permanently, when he voted for that bill.

I realize that statement is virtually impossible to prove. But, let's look at it logically. Anyone in doubt that Republicans have been castrated need only watch a little TV. You don't need to go to MSNBC or any other left leaning network. Go to Fox News and watch a discussion as to what should be done about the current "stimulus" package. Anytime a Republican or Conservative mentions free market alternatives, uses the word Socialism to accurately describe what the "stimulus" package encompasses, and note the Leftist response.

Bob "the Heckler" Beckel throws out the name "George W. Bush" every time he's involved in a discussion of the subject. Nina Easton blurted out the same message with decent clarity the other evening on Hannity's show. Michael Steele tried to correct her, acknowledging that Republicans on Capitol Hill might have a difficult time making a free market argument, but grassroots Conservatives were always opposed. Such a statement only confirms the point. Republicans on the Hill, by participating in drafting the bill, rather than out and out opposing it, castrated themselves and seriously damaged the Republican brand.

To further make the point, all you have to do is look at voter turn out on election day. The word "apathetic" doesn't begin to cover it. Prior to the "bail out" any principled Conservative was going to have a difficult time, as McCain's mother put it, "holding their noses and voting for him."

Republicans, had a golden opportunity to turn the rapidly deteriorating situation around. Imagine if McCain and the vast majority of Republicans had stood together against George Bush and TARP. Obviously, the overwhelming majority of the public was opposed. It would have been Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, almost the entire Democratic Congress, and by default, even if he wouldn't commit, Barack Obama siding with George Bush. John McCain, Sarah Palin, and Congressional Republicans would have been on the other side.

From a purely political perspective, I still scratch my head wondering what on earth Republicans thought they had to gain in aligning themselves with George Bush on the whole issue. Could there have been a lamer duck? His approval ratings were in the 20 percents.

Pelosi and Reid had handed Congressional Republicans a golden gift when they shut Republicans out of the negotiating process. Republicans could have stayed ten miles away from the infectious plague of a bill and claim no hand in it. John McCain was the Typhoid Mary of the day.

There is no proving, as I acknowledged, that I am right about how much the handling of TARP by Republicans damaged the party and its candidates. Of course no exit pollster asked anyone about the issue. One can, however, draw some logical conclusions by putting together the unprecedented number of phone calls and emails in opposition to TARP with the outcome of the overwhelming majority of votes on social issues in various states, answers to some actually pertinent questions from exit polls, studies of demographics of voter turnout, and the immutable fact that a large chunk of the electorate was woefully under-informed due to the "slobbering love affair" (hat tip to Bernie Goldberg) coverage of the media throughout the election cycle.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to draw the following conclusions from the above information: America is still a traditional, "center-right" country. Typically conservative voters largely stayed home. People, regardless of party voted by in support of traditional values, even if they had to "split their ticket" to do so. Those questioned about the RNC clearly sent the message that the Republican party is not too conservative and the party had lost its way. Only a small percentage of people describe themselves as "liberal". Finally, can anyone actually doubt that the electorate was woefully mis or under informed?

I wish I could pick the brains of large numbers of Conservatives. How many of them actually voted for Barack Obama because they wanted to send a message to the Republican party and in the hopes he would be Jimmy Carter 2.0, thereby bringing forth the next Ronald Reagan? I actually seriously considered doing so myself. The prospect of voting for John McCain made me want to hurl. It was only when I spent hours reading about Obama's background, including the topic of Black Liberation Theology and Saul Alinksy's Rules for Radicals that I firmly decided that I really had to vote for John McCain. I know I am not so unique that I could be the only Conservative who considered giving the Republican party a clear message and force it to reset.

Despite what I and the others in the 46% decided, there's no getting around that all of the above adds up to a clear message for the Republican party: You've screwed up.

Knowing these facts it would seem that the concept of common sense began to be violated about a nano second after the election. What were the obvious moves that should have been made by the party? Every last member of leadership should have resigned. It would have been a clear sign that the party as a whole understood they no longer had credibility.

But what actually happened? The only change I noted was Roy Blunt resigned and John Boehner did a very serious tap dance. It didn't impress me. I honestly don't give a flying fig how wonderful John Boehner or Mitch McConnell are as men. After TARP, they don't have a shred of credibility. Sen. McConnell, in particular, is just pathetic, as evidenced by his recent behavior and statements. If the party is to have any hopes of surviving, McConnell should be replaced, right now.

I truly appreciate that all of the Republicans in the House voted "NO" on HR1, what Rush so aptly calls "Porkulus". But, again, going back to where this started, what reason on earth do any of us have to believe its not just another negotiating ploy?

Republicans have literally, nothing to gain from "negotiating" with the Democrats on this bill. Let Democrats pass it on their own. Let them take the responsibility for fulling campaign promises and saddling generations to come with unfathomable debt.

To stand against the bill is not obstructionist. It's not saying "no"'; it's saying "YES" to the free market, "yes" to sound budgetary practices, and "yes" our children can have future. It's the only right thing to do.

Unless that bill contains genuine tax cuts for actual taxpayers, a reduction in the corporate rates, unless it has spending cuts, and government hiring freezes, it's going to hurt the country, not help it.

We will all be watching to see whether the Republican party decides to commit suicide. Let's help them all stay alive and develop spines by thanking the House members for voting "No" and writing and phoning Senators to tell them to do the same.

Read More......

Conservatives Suffering From Stockholm Syndrome

One of the funniest things I have heard in a while is a comment by a caller into the Mike Gallagher show. She assessed Republicans and "so-called" Conservatives who have been going along with all of the bailouts, stimulus packages, and other Leftist measures, as suffering from "Stockholm Syndrome".

For those not familiar, this "condition" is defined as, " An extraordinary phenomenon in which a hostage begins to identify with and grow sympathetic to their captor."(1) The syndrome is so called based on the reaction of hostages taken in a violent 1973 bank robbery in Stockholm Sweden. (More, here.)

Mike Gallagher's witty caller was certainly funny. Like I said, one of the funniest things I've heard in a while. Sometimes it does seem like the Democratic party leadership on Capitol hill must be at least, intermittently, holding some Republican politicians and even some "Conservative" pundits hostage. I've often wondered if there's some bizarre catch and release / re-catch and re-release program going on behind the scenes.

Perhaps the whole bunch has been undergoing a Patty Hearst type of brainwashing in some Congressional closet. The caller might be on to something....

While an amusing explanation, I'm buying this explanation about as much a I bought into the Simpson Dream Team's explanation of "if they do not fit, you must acquit."

As attractive as a million amusing and innocuous explanations may be for what appears to be a near total collapse of principles in the Republican party, no amusement, no explanation explains, let alone begins to deal with the truth that must be faced.

Sources:
1) "Definition of Stockholm Syndrome". Medicine.net

Read More......

Rep. Michelle Bachmann on What the Rahm Emmanuel Appointment Means: "It Looks Like The Sopranos"

Minnesota Representative Michelle Bachmann spoke to Mark Levin on his radio show Wednesday afternoon, after winning a second term in Tuesday's elections.

Mark asked Congresswoman Bachmann for her opinion on Rahm Emanuel being appointed Barack Obama's Chief of Staff:

Mark Levin: You've dealt with this scoundrel, my word, not yours, Rahm Emanuel, he's going to be chief of staff to Milhouse, Barack Milhouse Obama. Now the issue here is, he's a very nasty guy who plays really knuckle politics. This doesn't look like "change" and "hope". Does it to you?

Rep. Bachmann: Well, it looks like The Sopranos. I mean that's kind of what we're looking at. This is knuckle Chicago politics. And that's what's going to be in the White House now. I mean, we have been, Conservative Republicans have felt the brunt of Rahm Emanuel, this election cycle, last election cycle. It's unlike anything anyone has ever seen or heard. And now it's going to come forth out of the White House.

[crosstalk]

Mark Levin: Does this guy, does this guy reach across the aisle, does he ever reach across the aisle? I don't see it.

Rep. Bachmann: No, it's called shame and humiliate your opponent. That's what it is; it's shame and humiliation.

Mark Levin: So what kind of signal does this send to Republicans in Congress?

Rep. Bachmann: I think what it says is, people are not going to be running for office as Conservative Republicans unless they really mean it and feel it. To go through the kind of brutal lashings that the Democrats are going to be holding out for future office holders, um, you'd really have to think twice, just about your position, your reputation. I'm a mom of five, I had twenty-three foster kids and I worked professionally as a federal tax lawyer, and we've started our own business. And to go through something like this, where, really for eighteen days, your name is mud, your ruined, your reputation is destroyed.

And for what? I believe in freedom, I believe in this country. Believe in what you're trying to talk about everyday on your show, I mean, I'm a huge fan of you, Mark. And you've got, you've got normal people who want to run for office, 'cause they just love this country, and want the next generation to enjoy freedom. And let the world have a haven to repair to for freedom. And this is what we're up against.

Because it literally what is now the choice between socialism and those who still believe in the initial foundational principles of freedom. I'm never going to let go of those principles. I don't care how hard they beat me and humiliate me. I am never letting go of those principles, because I do think they are going to be under assaalt and this is Day 1 of the assault of socialism. But we need strong-minded leadership in D.C. to take these people on.

Mark Levin: Well you are a very, very strong person. We admire you enormously. And as you need to come on, you let us know. You need to do one favor for me, will you make me one promise?

Rep. Bachmann: What?

Mark Levin: Don't go on "MSLSD"* anymore.

Rep. Bachmann: That you don't have to worry about, my dear. You absolutely don't have to worry about that.

We lost some great colleagues last night. I mean true freedom fighters. Tom Feeney, Tim Walbert, Marilyn Musgrave, Steve Shaba, Thelma Drake. We lost true freedom fighters. We hung onto some; Scott Garrett, whose a real hero of mine. So it was brutal and it was bloody, but for those of us who made it through the smoke, it's because of the generous involvement of your listeners.

And I'm not going there just to put my head under the radar screen. I'm going there because we have to fight. Because if we don't fight, there is no alternative. That's what you told us when you spoke to us. We're it, we're all that's left. And if we don't fight, the only alternative is, is full-bore rampant socialism. You'll hear from me, you'll hear from Scott Garrett, you'll hear from my colleagues. We're going to go down swinging, we're not going to let them just roll over us. We're going to go down swinging. We're going to let the public know, from the front lines, what we see and hear everyday.

Mark Levin: Well, you are, you make us all proud. My buddy, Scott Garrett, thank God he won, too. And, uh, Congresswoman, God Bless you, and go get 'em.

Rep. Bachmann: We're going to do it. And thanks a million to your listeners, thank you for making this happen, thank you.

*If you want to know more about what's being referred to at this point in the conversation, read this post.

Rep. Bachmann is not painting a stilted picture of Rahm Emanuel. He once said, "Republicans can go f*%$ themselves." But then again, according to a Chicago Tribune reporter who followed him throughout the 2006 Mid-term election cycle, Emanuel's sentences are laced with profanity and he "extends his middle finger with some regularity". The Tribune reporter, Naftali Bendavid, was only allowed to report in detail on Emanuel and his tactics after the elections. It's a long, detailed piece, and while it provides insight into just how Emanuel master-minded Republican defeat, it blasts to shreds the flimsy hopes anyone has of the "new kind of politics" promised by Barack Obama during his campaign. The full story can be read by clicking here.

Constant use of profanity and "flipping the bird", while endearing qualities in any White House Chief of Staff, are not the sole talents Mr. Emanuel possesses. He is also, apparently, very entertaining when wielding a steak knife. A practially crowing article in the Huffington Post appeared today entitled "Rahm Emanuel: Knife Figher, A Look Back", details how Emanuel vented his frustration at "enemies" at an after-election dinner with fellow campaign workers. After screaming out a name, Emanuel apparently "stabbed" the table with his steak knife, screaming "Dead!"

We can all only wait to see who will be the next delightful appointment to the coming Obama administration.

Read More......

Chris Dodd: “I’d like to thank the Academy…”

Washington, D.C. – Post Senate Bailout Vote Award Ceremony

From the halls of the United States Senate:

In a self-congratulatory ceremony Wednesday evening, after the Senate passed the bailout bill, Master of Ceremonies, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, presented the much-coveted award for Best Performance as the Senate’s Most Shameless Grifter, to Senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut. Prior to turning over the microphone to Sen. Dodd for his acceptance speech, Sen. Reid, for the umpteenth time in the last two weeks, heaped praises on his esteemed colleague, noting how important his leadership in the Senate has been over the years, and particularly in passing the bailout bill.

Award winner Dodd proudly stepped in front of the microphone, saying the bill’s passage was due to “the tone of the Senate leadership”. Dodd, not to be outdone by Leader Reid, made sure he heaped loads of praise on Reid’s leadership, which included pointing out how Reid had made the so very gracious invitation to Senators McConnell and Gregg to work on the bill. Dodd explained that “this moment wouldn’t have come” without all of this great leadership. “I’d be remiss as well if I didn’t thank other people who were critically important in this….” Our coverage ends abruptly at this point as the on-the-scene pool cameraman from whom we received our footage was suddenly struck by a mysterious wave of nausea and didn’t finishing cleaning off his shoes before Dodd stepped away from the microphone….

Following the ceremony, a reporter questioned the president of The Academy for Corruption in Government, on the likely reason for Sen. Dodd having been chosen for the award over Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska, who was widely believed to have been a shoo-in. Stevens was recently indicted by the U.S. Justice Department and is currently standing trial for not properly reporting thousands of dollars of home improvement work from a contractor.

“The reason Sen. Dodd was chosen over Sen. Stevens, is simple: Sen. Stevens was disqualified. Once he was being held accountable for his actions, he was no longer eligible for the award. In order to meet the criteria of ‘Shameless’, you can’t be held accountable and you have to appear before the press, make speeches on the Senate floor, and play, or at least create the appearance of playing, a central role in creating legislation that is somehow related to the problem caused by the original graft. Besides, while Stevens is definitely a grifter, his actions are small potatoes compared to Dodd’s. Dodd not only received preferential treatment for mortgages from failed Countrywide, but he’s ground zero in the biggest financial collapse in the history of the country. Once we found out he was the number one recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae, he was the front runner,” explained the Academy president.

The Award ceremony following the House of Representatives vote on the same bill is expected to receive little attention as Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts is expected to win in a landslide. “Of course the envelope is sealed,” grinned the Academy president, “But, the outcome isn’t likely to surprise anyone. Who can think of anyone whose further up to their neck than Barney Frank in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac that led to the financial meltdown? And who has anyone ever known that is more shameless, except former Pres. Clinton, and since he’s not in the running, Frank’s clearly the odds-on favorite.”

Read More......