Visiting the troops: Don't fence them in

Ok, these are only two photos, so I don't think one can read a whole lot into them:

Two presidents visit U.S. troops: The styles of Barack Obama and George W. Bush in photos

But in the Obama photo, why are our troops behind a fence, like cattle? Even Obama clearly thinks the fence is in the way. Whose great idea was that?
     

Obama embraces the "failed Bush policy" of cutting taxes while raising spending

Has a vote for Obama become a vote for one of Bush's worst failed policies? Read this article in USA Today and decide for yourself:

Budget deficit to reach $1.2 trillion

WASHINGTON — The federal budget deficit will rise to a record $1.2 trillion this year, and a package of new spending increases and tax cuts planned by President-elect Barack Obama and congressional Democrats will push that figure higher, the Congressional Budget Office reported today.

In the first official reckoning of the damage caused by the severe recession, the report paints a bleak picture for 2009: a 2.2% drop in the size of the nation's economy, a jump in the jobless rate to 9.2% in early 2010, a 14% drop in home prices and a 1% decline in consumption.

The year-old recession, brought on by the slump in housing and its impact on financial institutions, "will probably be the longest and the deepest since World War II," the CBO said.

The budget deficit also will be the largest since World War II, and deficits will continue to haunt the federal government for the next decade, totaling $3.1 trillion. That's without any action by Obama and Congress to fix the economy, which will cause deficits to rise, the CBO said.

The report predicted that revenue will drop by $166 billion this year, or 6.6%. Spending will increase by more than $400 billion because of the government's takeover of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac housing corporations and the federal bailout of financial institutions. [...]

I'm not saying Obama will make a 3 Trillion dollar deficit. Not intentionally. Presumably he is planning to spend money to save the economy, and try to avoid a 3 Trillion deficit. But all these bailouts could be just throwing good money after bad. And it's money we don't have.

When McCain was nominated for the Republican ticket, he was heavily criticized by conservatives for opposing the Bush tax cuts. But when he opposed those tax cuts, it was because they were not accompanied by spending cuts. He was absolutely right. If you cut taxes and increase spending, you get in the mess we're in now.

Our next president seems to also want to cut taxes AND increase spending. Why, because it worked so well for George Bush? Obama kept insisting throughout the campaign that a vote for McCain was a vote for George Bush's failed policies. Now Obama himself is continuing one of Bush's biggest failed policies: cut taxes and spend more. How ironic.

It's imperative that we reduce the deficit. We must live within our means. We have seen what happens to individuals and businesses that refuse to live within their means. Now the government is supposed to bail them out? Who is going to bail out the government, when it continues to live beyond it's means?

If we get a 3 Trillion dollar deficit, it won't matter who did it or how we got there, if it leads to economic collapse and ruin. Does that sound overly dramatic? Consider what such a deficit could do to the value of the already weak dollar, and where that could lead.

If Obama's spending plans work to revive the economy, I'll be happy to be proven wrong, and gladly eat my words here. But I say what I say because I'm just not confident that a failed Bush policy is Change We Can Believe In.

A real change would be a common sense fix that wouldn't cost the tax payers anything.


Related Links:

Financial Crisis: a free-market solution?

"Bankruptcy, not bailout, is the right answer"

Economic Recovery & the Lessons of History
     

President Bush Didn't Lie. Duh.

This isn't news to me. But to see it explained in detail, in the MSM, especially from a left-leaning source like the L.A. Times, is shocking:

Bush never lied to us about Iraq

[...] Four years on from the first Senate Intelligence Committee report, war critics, old and newfangled, still don't get that a lie is an act of deliberate, not unwitting, deception. If Democrats wish to contend they were "misled" into war, they should vent their spleen at the CIA.

In 2003, top Senate Democrats -- not just Rockefeller but also Carl Levin, Clinton, Kerry and others -- sounded just as alarmist. Conveniently, this month's report, titled "Whether Public Statements Regarding Iraq by U.S. Government Officials Were Substantiated by Intelligence Information," includes only statements by the executive branch. Had it scrutinized public statements of Democrats on the Intelligence, Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees -- who have access to the same intelligence information as the president and his chief advisors -- many senators would be unable to distinguish their own words from what they today characterize as warmongering.

This may sound like ancient history, but it matters. After Sept. 11, President Bush did not want to risk allowing Hussein, who had twice invaded neighboring nations, murdered more than 1 million Iraqis and stood in violation of 16 U.N. Security Council resolutions, to remain in possession of what he believed were stocks of chemical and biological warheads and a nuclear weapons program. By glossing over this history, the Democrats' lies-led-to-war narrative provides false comfort in a world of significant dangers. [...]

(bold emphasis mine) It's also worth noting that Weapons of Mass destruction were NOT the ONLY reason for the war. Hussein was destabilizing the region, he was certainly intent on developing WMD's, and by removing him, we got rid of the biggest WMD - himself.

Unfortunately, removing Saddam Hussein also got rid of Iran's biggest enemy in the region. Iran just needs to get rid of the US influence in the region now, so they can annex Iraq and it's oil to fuel their war machine and fund their global ambitions. It's yet another reason why we can't just pull out and leave. Iran is the other half of the equation that still needs to be dealt with.

And yes, we freed up Iraq so it could sell oil on the world market again, making us less dependent on the Saudis. If you think that's a bad thing, then shut up about gas prices. You can't have it both ways. Duh.

The article was written by James Kirchick, who is an assistant editor of the New Republic. There are some criticisms within it about Mitt Romney's father who was governor of Michigan. What's he got to do with it? Read it and find out, if history interests you.
     

"Stand By Your Man": what does that really mean inside of Republican party politics?

This is a question I've been looking at a lot lately. I'm not the only Republican voter who has been... less than satisfied with some of the decisions of George W. Bush.

I've disagreed with the president on a lot of things right from the beginning, but he got my vote because letting the opposition he was running against win instead would have been so very much worse. So I have supported the President, albeit with some reservations.

Recently I dropped out of the "Blogs for Bush" blog roll, and deleted it from my sidebar. I've replaced it with "The Victory Wing of the Republican Party", which I have applied to join. I really want victory for the Republican's in 2008.

I dropped out of "Blogs for Bush", not because I wanted to bash Bush (I don't), but because he is not running again. I supported him when he was our horse in the race; I will continue to offer support, in those areas which I can agree, while he's still in office. But with no elections ahead for him, I did not want to continue to carry his banner. The Republican's will have a new horse in the race in 2008, and I don't see the point of waving the Bush flag anymore. Frankly, I'm hoping for a new candidate that's a bit closer to what I want.

Does that make me a Bush Basher? I hope not! Too many on the Left are doing that already, and my disagreements with the President are very different than theirs. There are also grumblings from conservatives too, not all of which I agree with either.

Dee at "Conservatism with Heart" has an excellent post in defense of W, "Going Out on a Limb--Why Bush Will Be a Winner!!". She rightly reminds us of the many good things W. has accomplished, and things he also tried to do. Even if you can't agree with all his efforts, can there be any doubt that from a Republican perspective, the end result has been better than anything Al Gore or John Kerry would have done?

For many years, I was registered as an independent, even though I voted Republican. I agree with about 90 percent of my state's Republican Party Platform. The other 10 percent of it just annoyed me.

I eventually realized that I was letting that 10 percent stop me from participating in the party I was voting for anyway, and that was silly. I finally registered as Republican.

I did so because I figure one of the best ways to get good candidates is to participate in the primaries. Even then you don't always end up with your ideal candidate.

When that happens, your choice is sometimes to choose the lesser of two evils; to vote for your less than ideal Republican so as not to surrender the field to a far worse Democrat.

Sometimes "standing by your man" means agreeing where you can, and agreeing to disagree where you can't agree. It's not a comfortable position to be in, but sometimes it's all you have.

The difficulty for me is, how do you express your disagreement with W, without joining the Bush Bashing of the Left? It's a delicate line to walk.

Dropping the "Blogs for Bush" blog roll was, for me, more about saying "I want something different next time" rather than about bashing Bush. Perhaps it was a mistake to drop "Blogs for Bush". When walking a delicate line, it's easy to misstep.

There are those who would argue that disagreeing with the President publicly is letting the Party down. Yet there IS a difference between offering a civil argument on an issue in hope of influencing policy, as opposed to endless angry rantings, ravings and emotional outbursts. The former is discourse; the latter is bashing.

The actual bashing of Bush by members so his own party does cause me concern... for the party itself. I think the 2006 election results are a good indication of what can happen if Republicans insist on being more idealistic than realistic at the voting booth. This Democratic victory has been painful and costly in too many ways.

Supposedly, many voters wanted to "teach a lesson" to Republican politicians by staying away from the polls or voting for alternative parties. I believe there was indeed a lesson to be learned from the 2006 election results. Will we, the voters, actually learn it, before we end up with President Hillary Clinton?


Related Links:

What is Wrong with Peggy Noonan??

Peggy Noonan was a Democrat