The New Status Quo

November 18th, 2009 – 11:52 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe
Tagged as: General Politics

democratIt seems as if nearly every politician running for office at any level vows to ’shake up the status quo’, which in itself is an indictment of both political parties and their current, long-running inability to get anything done. But Barack Obama, inadvertent as it may have been, does seem to have managed the impossible. The status quo in Washington and around the countryreally and truly has changed in the past year.

Republicans have long been the overtly patriotic party. They wave their flags and hoot and hurrah at every victory, large or small, that the U.S. wins on the world stage. Economic, political, athletic – if the U.S. wins, the Republicans rejoice. If the U.S. loses, they cry fowl. At least, that was the status quo.

Now, the Republicans are laughing it up in the face of Chicago (and by extension, the U.S.) taking an embarrassing earlyrepublican exit from the Olympics sweepstakes. The same GOPers who would dance in the streets if the U.S. could find somebody to outrun Usain Bolt, were utterly outraged when the Nobel Prize Committee doled out a freebie Peace Prize to the sitting U.S. President.

On the other side of the aisle, the Democrats have long been the party of civic protests and investigative journalism. The Dems love their Haldeman and Erlichmans, their Michael Moores, and their peaceful protests. That was the status quo. Now, protesters are openly mocked by the Left leaning media. The on-air opiners at MSNBC were positively giddy with their “tea bagger” jokes at the expense of the Right wing protesters. Democrats were suddenly appalled by protesters showing up at town hall meetings to express their discontentment.

Liberals love a good undercover video exposing government corruption or ineptitude, as long as the subjects of the expose are cigar-smoking, rich, white, Republican males. Send a journalist after ACORN or the House Oversight Committee, and it is no longer fun. YouTube is no longer the liberal’s friend. Freedom of speech is somebody else’s raison d’etre.

To those on both sides of the equation who claim that President Obama has yet to deliver on any of his campaign promises, I submit that the status quo has been duly shaken. Black is white, up is down, Democrats are the new establishment, and Republicans are the new radicals.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Universal Health Care

November 11th, 2009 – 10:50 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe

blue dogThis weekend, the House of Representatives passed the much debated Health Care Bill. This historic and monumental legislation passed by a razor thin 220-215 vote. The passage of this bill brought to mind several points that I’d like to bring out here.

There are 257 Democrats in the House, meaning this bill passed without even the full support of the President’s own party. In fact, a last minute Republican amendment is the only reason that several Blue Dog Democrats were able to tolerate the bill, meaning that the Conservatives accidentally made the passage of this bill possible.  On the bright side, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid can claim bi-partisan support, thanks to RINO (Republican In Name Only) Joseph Cao, the lone GOPer to vote in favor of the bill.

I consider myself to be a compassionate conservative (and no, that’s not an oxymoron and no, you’re not being funny or clever when you suggest it is). This bill is tough for me because I love the idea of everyone being cared for. I’m all for providing health care to everyone who needs it, in theory. The problem is that I just don’t believe this can work in practice.

We just can’t afford it.  The government’s own Budget Office laid it out months ago, but the President and Congress chose to ignore their own non-partisan projections.  In typical Government fashion, this new legislation allegedly will create over one hundred new commissions, committees, and agencies – all of which will have a hand in the health care pot.

I am feeling slightly conflicted about this situation.  Part of me is horrified at the prospect of the United States of America taking another step toward Socialism.  But then I remember that this is the federal government, and they will find a way to debate, stall, squabble, and mismanage until this becomes nothing more than a taxpayer funded bureaucratic mess with no real impact other than to drain a little more money from my check each and every payday.  It makes me sad to think that that is the best we can hope for out of our elected officials.

This is one time I’d love to be wrong.  But time will prove that I’m not.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Congressional Ethics

November 4th, 2009 – 11:35 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe

american-flagIronic as it may seem, the U.S. House of Representatives actually maintains an Ethics Committee. The stated purpose of this committee is to have the Representatives police themselves to prevent or punish any unseemly behavior on the part of any members of Congress. In practice, the committee mostly has served as a vehicle for members of the majority party to antagonize troublesome members of the minority party.

You don’t hear much about the Ethics Committee because their work is shrouded in super-secrecy. They don’t do press conferences. There is no message board listing their ongoing investigations. We, the people, simply have no visibility into the activities of the House Ethics Committee.

Until now.

The Washington Post recently got a hold of a confidential report from the arcane committee. The report details investigations into the wheelings and dealings between a lobbying firm and seven members of the House. Interestingly enough, five of the seven are members of the majority Democratic Party. While many pundits will spend their ink dissecting the contents of the leaked document (which was several months old when it leaked), I’m more interested in the way the report found its way into the hands of the fine folks at the Washington Post.

The Chairman… chairwoman… chairperson of the Ethics Committee, Representative Zoe Lofgren of California, referred to the breach as a case of “cyber-hacking”. I’m not an expert on the subject, but the labeling seems deceptive and downright unethical to me, unless you consider hiring a moron to be a Congressional staffer to be “cyber-hacking”.
It turns out that a staffer, referred to only as “a junior employee”, was trying to impress the bosses and pave the way for his (or her) meteoric rise in politics by working from home. What Junior Zippy didn’t realize was that using peer to peer freeware to download confidential documents from a secure server wasn’t going to be lauded as clever thinking by his (or her) bosses. In fact, once bosses found out that the Post got wind of the document, the powers that be made sure that he (or she) quickly became an EX-House staffer.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Party of No

October 28th, 2009 – 10:40 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe
Tagged as: General Politics

republicanThe Republican party is losing ground in the arena of public perception. According to some polls, the GOPs approval rating is now at an all time low. The question that we have to ask is, what have the Republicans done to merit such low marks?

Nothing.

The Republican party is a minority in both houses of Congress. They have almost no say in crafting legislation. All Republicans recently were locked out of the House Oversight Committee. Literally. The Chairman of the committee, a Democrat, had the locks changed so that the Republicans couldn’t even enter the conference chamber.

The Republicans are doing nothing because they can’t do anything.  All they do, all they can do, is say “No” to what they consider bad legislation.  Their “no” really doesn’t count for anything because the Democrats can pass whatever laws they want without Republican support.

So, if the GOP can’t stop the Dems from taking action, and the Dems aren’t making good on their campaign promises,who’s to blame?  A fractured and combative Democratic party? Moderate Democrats unwilling to follow their far-Left leadership?  The radical Liberals who are trying to change the country to fit their ideology?  The president who cannot lead his party in unity?

According to the pollsters, it’s none of the above.  The blame falls squarely on the Republicans, for their obstructionist refusal to approve of legislation that they had no hand in crafting.  With mid-term elections a year away, it should be interesting to see how this newest version of the blame game plays out.  So far, the Democrats, thanks to the rock star power of President Obama and an unprecedented degree of support from the media (excepting the hated Fox News, of course), the message reaching the voters is clear.  It remains to be seen whether the Democratic party can continue to deliver nothing and heap the blame on the Republicans without getting caught until the next elections.

My gut tells me that another year is too long.  The time is coming soon when the Democrats will have to put up some results or risk the consequences of promising much and delivering nothing.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Campaign Continues

October 23rd, 2009 – 9:28 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe
Tagged as: General Politics

fox-news-logoAs regular readers of this column, all three of them (Hi, mom!), know I usually don’t poke too much fun at President Obama himself.  I reserve most of my mocking for his slavish followers who worship him with a bizarre religious fervor and refuse to think critically about the consequences of anything he says or does.    But as the President and his advisers mount an unprecedented attack on a major news network, it is time for me to turn the harsh light of reason onto Mr. Obama himself.

The plain truth is that Obama acts more like a candidate than a president.  Maybe it is because he’s such a good campaigner.  To be fair, he really is good at it – reading speeches from the teleprompter, glad handing with the locals, making promises he has no intention of keeping.  He is so good at campaigning that he was elected to the office of President of the United States of America with practically no high level political experience.

He’s at his best when he’s working against someone.  He beat the pants off of John McCain in the fall of 2008.  Then he continued to campaign against President Bush for 10 months after he actually had won the election.  Now that act has worn thin, so he’s running against Fox News.  If only he’d turn that competitive bent against Mahmoud Ahmadineja, maybe he could do some real good.  But instead he continues to pick at whatever he sees as the face of conservatism and blast away as if his job depended on it.

So, here’s my proposal, for the good of the country.  Let’s set up a campaign for some bogus office, like Official Global World Prime Minister, and let Mr. Obama run against the rest of the world leaders for the position.  If creating a strong and financially stable America were the only path to President Obama becoming Official Global World Prime Minister Obama, maybe he’d start doing what’s in America’s long-term best interest.  Or at least start promising it in stirring teleprompter-fed speeches.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

Students & Politics

October 21st, 2009 – 11:27 am Posted by Michele

As the legal voting age in America is eighteen, many adolescents and young adults become politically active following that birthday.  Maybe you take up a cause, support a candidate, or simply vote.

To glimpse into one such perspective from that age bracket, check out this video of a college student and his thoughts on politics.

YouTube Preview Image
Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The Nobel Prize

October 13th, 2009 – 9:22 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe

ObamaCamp Campaign has procured an exclusive transcript of the deliberations between Hans Dorfenshalter and Heinrich Waldendoof, two members of the Nobel Prize selection committee. This conversation, secretly recorded and painstakingly transcribed, details some of the heretofore unknown thought process that goes into selecting an individual for the prestigious Nobel Prize.

HANS: Heinrich, are you enjoying the illegal drugs and prostitutes that were provided for us?

HEINRICH: Oh, yes, Hans. I am.

HANS: I was thinking, our all-expense paid week in the hotel is almost up, so maybe we’d better pick a winner for the Peace Prize.

HEINRICH: Oh, yeah. I was thinking about that. We should give it to Barack Obama.

HANS: Oh, I love me some Barack Obama.

HEINRICH: Well, who doesn’t?

HANS: But don’t we have to, like, give a reason or something?

HEINRICH: He’s Barack Obama. What more reason do you need?

HANS: Good point. But we’ve got to put something on the form that we turn in.

HEINRICH: How about, he, you know, died for our sins and rose again?

HANS: He did that?

HEINRICH: I think so.

HANS: Oh, man. I hate fact checking.

HEINRICH: I know. Maybe we better come up with something completely unverifiable.

HANS: Like?

HEINRICH: He, you know, changed the perceptions of America…

HANS: Yeah, and he, um, brought the whole world together as…

HEINRICH: As…

HANS: How about just “brought the whole world together”?

HEINRICH: I love it!

HANS: But…

HEINRICH: What is it now?

HANS: But he didn’t really do anything… yet, I mean. Maybe we should wait until next year.

HEINRICH: What are you, a neocon?

HANS: I don’t think so. What’s a “neocon”?

HEINRICH: Someone who questions Obama. You know, Right-wingers, pro-lifers, conservative Jews…

HANS: I’m just saying maybe we should wait until he actually accomplishes…

HEINRICH: Racist! You hate black people!

HANS: No, no, I… I was just playing “Devil’s advocate”. You know, like when they pick the pope?

HEINRICH: They do that?

HANS: It was in “The DaVinci Code”.

HEINRICH: Well, now that that’s settled. Let’s pick a winner for Physics.

HANS: OK. I’ve narrowed down the short list to Michael Jackson or Michael Moore.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

2016 Olympics

October 6th, 2009 – 9:18 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe
Tagged as: General Politics

rio 2016The city of Chicago lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympic Games. The President himself flew to Copenhagen to personally lobby the Olympic Committee to pick Chicago. Las Vegas odds makers had Chicago as a favorite to win the bid.  And yet Chicago went down in ignoble defeat, knocked out in the first round.  So, what can we learn from this debacle?

#1 – Copenhagen is not only a tobacco company, it is also apparently a city located somewhere outside the US.

#2 – The International Olympic Committee just isn’t as impressed as you’d think they would be by the sitting President of the United States paying them a personal visit.

#3 – There are multiple rounds in the process of selecting the winning city for the next Olympic Games.

#4 – Rio de Janero will be the first city in South America to host the Olympic Games.  Ever.  Maybe it was just their turn.

#5 – International Olympic Committee Olympic City Location Picker (IOCOCLP) must be a pretty awesome job.  Can you imagine the amount of schmoozing, free food, and outright bribery these people get?  Somebody tell me how I can get in on that deal.

Now, much has been made in the “news” about this upset loss for Chicago.  Conservatives, at least the mean-spirited ones, are delighting in the personal indignity that it schluffed onto President Obama, much they way Liberals delighted in every indignity suffered by President Bush for 8 years.  Forget the harm that it does to the country.  Partisan politics rule the day.

But the bigger question is: was this really a loss for America?  I mean, sure, it stinks for Chicago.  Hosting the Olympic Games means buckets of money and jobs and international exposure for the host city.  But does it matter to the rest of the US?  Would any of that moolah trickle down to Florida?  Would the prestige factor granted to Chicago have rubbed off on Pennsylvania?

As usual, the answer depends on which side of the political spectrum you’re on.  And sadly, for most people the answer would be the opposite if a different guy had won the election. But I, being the last rational person left in America, kind of suspect that in the long run this doesn’t really matter to anyone outside Cook County, IL.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

The VRWC is BACK

September 30th, 2009 – 9:15 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe

Bill ClintonContinuing our unintended series of “Why Ex-Presidents Should Just Shut Up”, Bill Clinton has thrust himself back into the news this week by insisting that the “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy” is back in action.  For those with short memories or young lives, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy (let’s call it the VRWC for short) is a non-existent organized attack on Bill Clinton that then-first lady Hillary Clinton made up as an excuse for the negative publicity her husband received for seducing and carrying on an affair with a 22 year old girl and then lying about it on live TV.

When asked about the old VRWC, President Clinton refused to take the high road and instead slithered down the same old tired “I’m a victim” schtick.  Now President Obama is being targeted by a smaller but equally virulent version of the VRWC, whose sole mission is apparently to ensure Obama’s failure, without regard for the well being of the country.

In summary, in the last two weeks, we’ve been told that if we disagree with the direction that the Wise and Benevolent Obama is taking, we are racist, AND we don’t care about the good of the country.  Too bad Lyndon Johnson is no longer alive.  I’m sure if he were around he’d be on Meet the Press next week explaining how anyone who opposes Obama’s policies is really a flesh eating zombie.

If believing the OMB’s projections that clearly show we cannot afford universal health care and wanting to keep the country from going bankrupt makes me a member of the VRWC, then send my membership card to me now.  I guess I’d rather throw my lot in with a a bunch of racist, conspiratorial, flesh eaters than see my country collapse under the massive build up of a Socialist government.  I don’t have to be an actual racist to join, right?  And the eating of human flesh, that’s optional, I hope.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post

If Jimmy Carter Says So

September 23rd, 2009 – 9:00 am Posted by Ronald A. Rowe

jimmy-carterAccording to the standard set by our beloved 39th president, I guess I’m a racist.  Funny, I never thought of myself as such.  But I disagree with our current president’s socialist agenda, so Jimmy Carter has labeled me a racist. According to the worst president of the last seven or eight decades, anyone who opposes President Obama does so strictly because of the color of his skin.

Thought you were opposed to a health care plan that will cost trillions?  WRONG!  You’re just a racist.  Thought you were against activist judges on the Supreme Court?  THINK AGAIN!  You just can’t stand the thought of a black man in the White House.  Troubled by double digit unemployment and huge government bailouts?  LIAR!  You wouldn’t mind losing your job if a white man were president.

You can take solace in the fact that you are not alone.  Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican Party, is obviously a racist.  The fact that he is black and Jimmy Carter is white should not confuse you.  Steele obviously hates all black… ahem… African Americans because he is opposed to the Benevolent One’s every move.  And we all know that there is only one reason that anyone would oppose the Wise and Enlightened Leader.

In fact, President Obama’s approval rating is now at 49%, which means that more than half of all Americans are low down, dirty racist fiends.  I only can assume that millions of Americans have been won over to the dark side since the election, because more people disapprove of The Great and Powerful Obama now than last year.  In fact, many of the people who now disapprove of his actions voted for Obama just last fall.  The KKK must be holding round the clock rallies to win over so many new converts.

Jimmy Carter left office as a punchline.  He spent years doing good work with Habitat for Humanity and rebuilding his image.  He won a Nobel Prize, for crying out loud!  It’s time for him to shut up before he wastes twenty years of goodwill and re-establishes himself as a buffoon.  I wonder, can the Nobel committee take back their prize?

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks

Post to Twitter Tweet This Post