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......

Lynn De Rothschild: "Obama Tax 'Cuts' Are Biggest Welfare Program Since Welfare Began

After Wednesday night's debate, FoxNews' Greta Van Susteren interviewed Lynn Forester De Rothschild, a prominent former Hillary Clinton supporter and fundraiser who recently came forward to support John McCain.

Mrs. De Rothschild informed Greta that Sen. Obama's purported tax cuts for 95% of Americans is not a tax cut at; it's a welfare program disguised as a tax cut. She pointed out that the Obama campaign fails to mention that under the Obama plan, 40% of the 95% are people who currently pay not taxes at all. The 40%, some 60 million people who again, currently don't pay any taxes, would receive money from the government through a "tax credit". Mrs. De Rothschild stated further:

It's the biggest welfare plan in the guise of a 'tax cut' since welfare began. This is not a tax cut.

In addition, she pointed out that analysts have confirmed that this plan would cost $1 trillion dollars. Greta then asked how the plan would be funded.

Barack Obama isn't going to get all that money from the other 5% of taxpayers.

Greta inquired:

So, you're saying the rest of the taxpayers, would have to pay for it?

Mrs. De Rothschild replied in the affirmative. She concluded by explaining that John McCain's tax plan would cut taxes for people who are paying taxes today.

Read More......

Mark Levin Speaks with Bob Bennett about Keating 5 and Iran-Contra

For the complete broadcast which includes this interview, follow this link.

Mark Levin (Levin): Well, I want to welcome Bob Bennett to the show. Bob Bennett is one of the most exceptional and successful lawyers in the nation. He's represented everybody from Bill Clinton to Caspar Weinberger. He happens to be the older brother of a man I deeply admire and who is a terrific radio host, Bill Bennett. How are you, sir?

Bob Bennett (Bennett): Fine, Mark, how have you been?

Levin: I'm very well. Do you remember meeting me a few times?

Bob: "Oh, I remember, absolutely."

Levin: I was the handsome one, remember?

Bob: You were the good looking one, I remember that.

[laughter]

Levin: Well, first of all, your book, In the Ring: Trials of a Washington Lawyer. We've linked to that on marklevin.com. It's a terrific book and that is why I want to talk to you.

Bob: Thanks, Mark, yeah.

Levin: You have a chapter on the Keating 5. And Bob, this is very important, now, because, people are bringing up, i don't want to drag you into politics, but people are bringing up William Ayers, and suddenly this Keating 5 thing pops up again. Why don't you tell us, give us a thumbnail sketch of what happened there and what was the deal about John McCain.

Bob: I'll stick to the public record. What my role was - I was hired by a bi-partisan Senate Ethics Committee to investigate what was known as "The Keating 5". And in essence, what it was, was that there was something called the Direct Investment Rule which Charles Keating was opposed to. What it did was it basically said that Savings and Loans, which he owned one, couldn't, were limited in where they could invest their money. Senator DiConcini scheduled a meeting with several Senators to meet with the head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and pressure them.

And, Senator McCain attended that meeting. And one thing led to another and the Ethics Committee conducted an investigation. And I investigated it for a long, long time, well over a year. For the purpose of determining whether or not the Senators, including McCain, violated any standards, rules, ethical prohibitions. And at the end of the investigation, I concluded that Senator McCain and Senator Glenn should be exonerated, that is, that there should be no further action against them, but that was rejected by the Committee and there were some twenty-six days of public hearings.

As you know, Mark, 'cause on the occasions we've met, I- we argued some. I'm a Democrat, as you know. But, I had to call it the way the evidence dictated, and I called it that John McCain did nothing wrong. How Heflin, who at the time, was the Chairman of the Committee, was very concerned that there be twenty-six days of hearings with only Democrats in "the docks", so to speak, so my recommendation about exonerating Senators Glenn and McCain was rejected and we went forward. But... it's....and at the end of the day, it was pretty clear, from all the evidence, that there was no violation by Senator McCain.

I'm sorry to be so long but that's in a nutshell, what happened.

Levin: Well, it's important, because it's a long time ago, we have five and a half million people listening and we gotta get this right, Bob. And, it seems to me, that based on what you're saying, based on what I've read in your book, and what you've said before, frankly, that he was thrown into this for political reasons, and it's being raised again, you don't have to answer the last part, I'm commenting, it's being raised now for political reasons. John McCain is not an unethical man, can you, can we agree on that?

Bob: Let me say this: from all the evidence, he's not a friend of mine, although I guess, in the spirit of full disclosure, years after the Keating case, just this past year, he hired me as a lawyer, to represent him in connection with this dispute about lobbying he was having with the New York Times. But, at the time I made my findings, I was totally independent, and I'm not a surrogate of his in this political.... You know, I represent too many people on both sides of the aisle. But the direct, that as background, I certainly saw nothing in my investigation that would call into question, John McCain's ethics. When he learned that there had been a referral to the Justice Department by the regulators, uh, he withdrew from any assistance to Keating and in fact, got into a big argument with Charles Keating, who called McCain "a wimp", which did not sit well with the Senator. So, I certainly, based on my investigation in that case, saw nothing to call in to question John McCain's ethics.

Levin: And you've represented, you're right, people of all political stripes and so on. Let me askyou a little bit about that if i could segue.

Bob: Sure.

Levin: Casper Weinberger, you represented him in the Iran-Contra matter. I represented Attorney General Meese. Now, what kind of a man for you, was Casper Weinberger?

Bob: Oh, I think he was the tops. I mean, I have never seen such prosecutorial abuse in my life as I saw in the Weinberger case as I saw in, by former Federal Judge Lawrence Walsh. It was a terrible abuse of power. You know, Weinberger was the former Secretary of Defense and yet, Walsh was, I was about to say he was so close to me as you are now, but we're not very close we're on the phone [laughter], but I was about three feet away from the man, and he, Walsh, basically said to me and my partner, Karl Rauh, he said, "If you'll turn on Ronald Reagan, we'll give you a no jail-misdemeanor plea." I left the meeting shaking my head and I said to Carl, who was the former U.S. Attorney in Washington, "Do you belive what we just heard? This guy's gunning for Ronald Reagan." And it was one of the most incredible experiences I've had in my life. Weinberger was just a class act and a real statesman. You know, I didn't agree with him on a lot of things, he was a conservative Republican and I'm a democrat. But he was one terrific human being.

Levin: As a side note, I remember having to go into the vault there in the Justic Department, you know, our hands were tied there lots of times, weren't they Bob?

Bob: Yeah sure.

Levin: And reading some of the Grand Jury stuff, which we're only allowed to read, and we could use it, but we had to write it down by hand [Bob: Yeah, right] or whatever, and I remember going back to Ed Meese and saying, "These bastards are trying to indict you. I said, "I can't believe it." And they wanted to indict Schultz, and they wanted to indict Weinberger. I said, "My God, these guys are getting out of control."

Bob: Well, you know, Mark, Weinberger thought he was a cooperating witness for Walsh, you know, being Secretary of Defense and having all of the government [inaudible], it wasn't unusual for him to get requests, and for five years, he thought he was a cooperating witness because if you remember, he was opposed, vehemently opposed to the sale of arms to Iran, and he then got a target letter. I really appreciate you mentioning the book, In the Ring. I do have two chapters in the book, one is dedicated in the book to the Keating 5 and a chapter in the book dedicated to this Weinberger case.

Levin: Do you still represent Bill Clinton?

Bob: No, no, that matter is over with.

Levin: I don't mean...I mean, if he needs something, does he still call on Bob Bennett, or does he have a bunch of lawyers?

Bob: You know, I wouldn't tell you if he did, Mark.

Levin: Ok.

Bob: You know, If I could just make a point, because you mentioned it earlier on, I just hope that Senators Obama and McCain stick to the issues and I'm really worried, I know you feel [Mark: Not really.] as I do, that this politics of personalization, these politics of personal destruction, is awful and I just hope they just get on and discuss the issues.

Levin: Well, you know, hope is what it is, my friend.

Bob: Yeah.

Levin: One of these days, a nice thick steak, how do you like your steak done?

Bob: Well, I like it, I prefer it on the well done side.

Levin: I do, too.

Bob: If you talk to any real, you're going to get calls, this is the only thing you're going to get calls on [laughter], I'm told real cattle people, they won't eat their steak raw or rare, they want it done, they really don't want it rare or raw, I'm so curious...

Levin: I've had lunch a couple of times with Bill in years past. How does he like it, well done or doesn't it?

Bob: As long as it doesn't bite back, Bill likes it. [laughter]

Levin: Ok, folks, get this book. It's a fascinating book: In the Ring: The Trials of a Washington Lawyer. It's got a chapter right there on the Keating 5, a chapter on Weinberger, and a there's a lot more than that.

Read More......