Friday, January 30, 2009

The Politics of Fear II

President Obama was back at it this week with his doom and gloom prognostications concerning the economy.

The Fearmonger-in-Chief saying, "This isn't just an economic concept, this is a continuing disaster for America's working families." Then adding, "What we can't do is drag our feet or delay much longer."

Later he sent his chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisors, Christina Romer, to the podium to share, "This widespread decline emphasizes that the problems that began in our housing and financial sector have spread to nearly all areas of the economy. Immediate action to support both the financial sector and overall demand is essential."

Remember when President Bush told us the war against terror and the war in Iraq was going to take a long time and many American servicewomen and men would lose their lives? How differently the media and the ever-divisive Democrats played that.

300,000,000 millions Americans

300,000,000 million Americans and President Obama can't find one who paid his taxes to be Treasury Secretary.

300,000,000 million Americans and President Obama can't find one who paid his taxes to be Health and Human Services Secretary.

300,000,000 million Americans and President Obama can't find one to replace President Bush's Defense Secretary.

300,000,000 million Americans and President Obama can't find one who voted against the war in Iraq to be his Vice President or his Secretary of State.

Credit for Nothing

What's the point of an executive order banning lobbyists from serving in the Obama Administration if every single lobbyist who Obama wants to serve is given an exemption? Of course, so the liberal extremists who control the media can tout the President issued an laudable ban.

5 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I read in the WSJ this week that the so-called "stimulus" bill, at >$800,000,000,000 costs more than the war in Iraq. Didn't we hear about the "cost ($) of the war" being a (negative) Bush legacy?

8:18 AM  
Blogger Zack said...

Hardball,

Billions and billions of dollars of Democratic Party largess offends none of the liberal extremists who control the media.

I'm going to try and find the quote now, but I think I heard President Obama say yesterday that, "Now is not the time for (corporate) profits." Third-graders can now arguably be deemed smarter than our President.

Jan. 31 8:46 am

8:46 AM  
Blogger Zack said...

My original post may give the reader the impression I think a "lobbyist" ban is laudable. I do not. I don't really care much what the person most qualified for a job in government did before joining government. This notion that lobbyists are somehow unqualified for or should be disqualified from service is simply wrong.

Jan. 31 9:48 am

9:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do care about a person's core values. They play into "most qualified"...if you don't pay taxes you're not qualified to be Treasury Secretary (or HHS Secretary for that matter). I think its OK for there to be a minimum standard of behavior to render "qualified".

9:44 AM  
Blogger Zack said...

Hardball,

Yes, I care about a person's core values but I think we are now mixing too many arguments here.

If I was voting for someone, I'd have a chance to apply my "values" to the candidates values. Sexual predators like Gerry Studds or Bill Clinton would not get my vote. Liars like Bill Clinton would not get my vote. Racists like Robert Byrd would not get my vote.

However, if we're talking about presidential appointments, well, I feel like the voters have decided on the Executive Branch and that the President is entitled to the Cabinet and Administration he or she wants. The voters get a chance to evaluate the President's values accordingly and the voters can make themselves heard at the ballot box.

The Senate does have "advise and consent" responsibilities and if the Senate wants to play politics, it is a politcal body afterall, then let them. Actions have consequences and if a politician can strengthen their hand, they will grandstand accordingly. If a Senator over-plays her/his hand, there are consequences for that as well.

I would never vote for tax cheats at the ballot box. If I were a Senator, I'd let the President have the Administration he wants.

Yes, I think we are at great national security risk with Leon Panetta in charge of anything intellignece or security related and this is a pretty good case-study question challenging my just stated belief. As a Senator, do I have a responsibility to innocent Americans to vote "nay" on Panetta?

Feb. 1 10:00 am

10:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home