As expected, the government is incapable of "owning" GM with out it's members using that ownership for political advantage.
In this clip, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) confirms the inevitable. You can bet that if a Republican used political connections to get a friend and/or donor's GM dealership restored it would be the leading story on MSNBC. Dispicable. Thanks to JB for supplying this link.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thR-lVuztIY
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
I'm back...
I stayed away for a while, but some recent headlines prompted my return. As this is my first blog, I'm still trying to find a balance between posting snippets and in-depth posts (obviously). I'm starting with snippets!
GM Bankruptcy - As I predicted, all that money that we poured down the rat hole that is GM is now gone forever. All it did was postpone the inevitable, and at a huge taxpayer cost, present and future.
Failure of "Stimulus" - Amazingly, sprinkling a trillion dollars willy-nilly over our nation like you're Pacman Jones in a Vegas Gentleman's Club isn't the answer to jump-starting our economy. Don't believe me, just listen to Obamaphile Warren Buffet (who, by the way is a genius when endorsing Obama, but gets zero coverage on a story like this), and our esteemed Loose-Cannon-in-Chief, Joe Biden.
Sotomayor Nomination - As a pro-life Catholic, of course I am against her nomination. But as a pragmatist, I realize this nomination came not from Obama as much as from the American people last November. To the victors go the spoils. I only hope that it energizes the apathetic pseudo-conservative voters that voted for non-specific dreams of "hope", "change", and "optimism" rather than their core beliefs of less government and support of human life. We shall see... But the media's double-standard never ceases to astound. When Bush 43 nominated Miguel Estrada to the circuit court, Dem's filibustered (nearly unprecedented in lower court judicial nominations)and killed his nomination, saying that his life experience as a minority immigrant was irrelevant to his qualifications - he was "too conservative for the second highest court in the land". Really?!? The imminently racially sensitive People for the American Way called him "a latino Clarence Thomas." Nice. Meanwhile Sotomayor's states that an Hispanic woman can be more judicious than a white male of the same qualifications, and anyone who might suggest this to be a racist statement is immediately branded a Rush Limbaugh drone.
Do as I say not as I do (Part 1)- Why are liberals afraid to say what their true intentions are? During the campaign, Obama has said that a single payer (read: "100% government run") healthcare system would be his ideal (read: "utopian") outcome. But he knows that country will never buy into such an absurdly liberal concept. So now he wants to make a quasi-governmental entity to compete with private insurers. Hmmm... As it is currently being sold, most agree that most customers will move toward the government-run option, driving out private competitors one-by-one until we have - you guessed it - 100% government run healthcare. So why not just say so to begin with? And why is "liberal" a label that is avoided at all costs, while "conservatives" wear their label as a badge of honor? Say what you will about Dubya - at least when he said something you pretty much knew he meant it.
Do as I say not as I do (Part II) - "What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM." Really? Meanwhile, GM is being called to testify to congress defending their decision to eliminate dealerships. Meanwhile, Obama has promised Detroit mayor Dave Bing that he supports GM's headquarters remaining in Detroit. Meanwhile, the administration is bragging about how it is influencing GM's operations. Hmmm... sounds like running GM to me.
If you think that our liberal leaders don't want to or aren't planning to run the entire healthcare system you are naive bordering on myopic.
GM Bankruptcy - As I predicted, all that money that we poured down the rat hole that is GM is now gone forever. All it did was postpone the inevitable, and at a huge taxpayer cost, present and future.
Failure of "Stimulus" - Amazingly, sprinkling a trillion dollars willy-nilly over our nation like you're Pacman Jones in a Vegas Gentleman's Club isn't the answer to jump-starting our economy. Don't believe me, just listen to Obamaphile Warren Buffet (who, by the way is a genius when endorsing Obama, but gets zero coverage on a story like this), and our esteemed Loose-Cannon-in-Chief, Joe Biden.
Sotomayor Nomination - As a pro-life Catholic, of course I am against her nomination. But as a pragmatist, I realize this nomination came not from Obama as much as from the American people last November. To the victors go the spoils. I only hope that it energizes the apathetic pseudo-conservative voters that voted for non-specific dreams of "hope", "change", and "optimism" rather than their core beliefs of less government and support of human life. We shall see... But the media's double-standard never ceases to astound. When Bush 43 nominated Miguel Estrada to the circuit court, Dem's filibustered (nearly unprecedented in lower court judicial nominations)and killed his nomination, saying that his life experience as a minority immigrant was irrelevant to his qualifications - he was "too conservative for the second highest court in the land". Really?!? The imminently racially sensitive People for the American Way called him "a latino Clarence Thomas." Nice. Meanwhile Sotomayor's states that an Hispanic woman can be more judicious than a white male of the same qualifications, and anyone who might suggest this to be a racist statement is immediately branded a Rush Limbaugh drone.
Do as I say not as I do (Part 1)- Why are liberals afraid to say what their true intentions are? During the campaign, Obama has said that a single payer (read: "100% government run") healthcare system would be his ideal (read: "utopian") outcome. But he knows that country will never buy into such an absurdly liberal concept. So now he wants to make a quasi-governmental entity to compete with private insurers. Hmmm... As it is currently being sold, most agree that most customers will move toward the government-run option, driving out private competitors one-by-one until we have - you guessed it - 100% government run healthcare. So why not just say so to begin with? And why is "liberal" a label that is avoided at all costs, while "conservatives" wear their label as a badge of honor? Say what you will about Dubya - at least when he said something you pretty much knew he meant it.
Do as I say not as I do (Part II) - "What we are not doing — what I have no interest in doing — is running GM." Really? Meanwhile, GM is being called to testify to congress defending their decision to eliminate dealerships. Meanwhile, Obama has promised Detroit mayor Dave Bing that he supports GM's headquarters remaining in Detroit. Meanwhile, the administration is bragging about how it is influencing GM's operations. Hmmm... sounds like running GM to me.
If you think that our liberal leaders don't want to or aren't planning to run the entire healthcare system you are naive bordering on myopic.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
This train is bound for glory... Redux
Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates. This is change?
Gates, while maybe not a 180 degree turn from Obama's stated positions, is at least a 135 degree turn. Obama has railed against the Bush doctrine ad nauseum, but has retained the man responsible for the turnaround in Iraq, including the troop surge that he so vehemently detested. This implied endorsment of the Bush defense department's performance in Iraq will never be treated as such by the libs - instead it will be a "thoughtful selection based on his experience and expertise"
Barack Obama on Hillary:
March 2008: “What exactly is this foreign policy expertise? Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”
January 2008: “It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected... She’ll say anything and change nothing.
Obama Campaign Statement in December 2007: An Obama White House would not need to take advice from “someone whose ideas were more in line with those of President George W. Bush” than with Obama’s. “Barack Obama doesn’t need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq.”
Many of these comments were made during that critical time in the primary contest where the Obamaniacs were in full anti-Hillary mode, calling for her to drop out of the race and accusing her of trying to destroy Obama by continuing the primary, despite the forgone conclusion that Obama had already won, in the hopes of destroying Dem hopes in 2008 for her chance to win in 2012.
December 2008: "She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic" He added that his new team must “pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example."
Sounds to me like Obama is the one who will say anything to get elected.
And I haven't even gotten to Tom Dachle and Bill Richardson yet. Someone please explain to me how this is moving forward.
Gates, while maybe not a 180 degree turn from Obama's stated positions, is at least a 135 degree turn. Obama has railed against the Bush doctrine ad nauseum, but has retained the man responsible for the turnaround in Iraq, including the troop surge that he so vehemently detested. This implied endorsment of the Bush defense department's performance in Iraq will never be treated as such by the libs - instead it will be a "thoughtful selection based on his experience and expertise"
Barack Obama on Hillary:
March 2008: “What exactly is this foreign policy expertise? Was she negotiating treaties? Was she handling crises? The answer is no.”
January 2008: “It’s what’s wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected... She’ll say anything and change nothing.
Obama Campaign Statement in December 2007: An Obama White House would not need to take advice from “someone whose ideas were more in line with those of President George W. Bush” than with Obama’s. “Barack Obama doesn’t need lectures in political courage from someone who followed George Bush to war in Iraq.”
Many of these comments were made during that critical time in the primary contest where the Obamaniacs were in full anti-Hillary mode, calling for her to drop out of the race and accusing her of trying to destroy Obama by continuing the primary, despite the forgone conclusion that Obama had already won, in the hopes of destroying Dem hopes in 2008 for her chance to win in 2012.
December 2008: "She possesses an extraordinary intelligence and toughness, and a remarkable work ethic" He added that his new team must “pursue a new strategy that skillfully uses, balances, and integrates all elements of American power: our military and diplomacy, our intelligence and law enforcement, our economy and the power of our moral example."
Sounds to me like Obama is the one who will say anything to get elected.
And I haven't even gotten to Tom Dachle and Bill Richardson yet. Someone please explain to me how this is moving forward.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Let them die.
As much as I hate to admit it, I have been somewhat on the fence about the Big Three Bailout, for purely selfish reasons. Due to my pure fiscal conservative roots, I am generally against any government intervention in the markets, but the direct impact that bankrupcy of GM, Ford, and Chrysler would have on an already beaten-down Michigan economy gave me pause.
But then I came to my senses. This industry is the posterchild against a bailout like this. These companies have a long history of mismanagement, squandering of almost religious customer good will over their asian competitors, historic levels of inefficiency, and complete and enduring lack of vision (not to mention a string of mind-bogglingly unsustainable union contracts). To reward them with another $50B dollars on top fo the $25B we gave them a year ago is madness. We already dump billions of good dollars after bad into an organization that continues to fail miserably, year after year, by nearly every possible measurement. It's called our education system.
The truth is, GM bankrupcy will be painful in the short term, but actually much better in the long term. Reorganization under Chapter 11 would allow them to invalidate the smothering union contracts that they were bullied into, dissolve unneeded brands and eliminate dealerships, broker deals with their suppliers, and still retain the vast majority of their manufacturing capacity and market share.
George Will (in the top two thinkers of our generation, by the way) summed it up perfectly here.
But then I came to my senses. This industry is the posterchild against a bailout like this. These companies have a long history of mismanagement, squandering of almost religious customer good will over their asian competitors, historic levels of inefficiency, and complete and enduring lack of vision (not to mention a string of mind-bogglingly unsustainable union contracts). To reward them with another $50B dollars on top fo the $25B we gave them a year ago is madness. We already dump billions of good dollars after bad into an organization that continues to fail miserably, year after year, by nearly every possible measurement. It's called our education system.
The truth is, GM bankrupcy will be painful in the short term, but actually much better in the long term. Reorganization under Chapter 11 would allow them to invalidate the smothering union contracts that they were bullied into, dissolve unneeded brands and eliminate dealerships, broker deals with their suppliers, and still retain the vast majority of their manufacturing capacity and market share.
George Will (in the top two thinkers of our generation, by the way) summed it up perfectly here.
This train is bound for glory...?
Emmanuel as chief of staff was apparently just the beginning. Barack Obama named Tom Dachle as the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Yet another example of "change we can believe in", huh? Dachle was the most partisan of partisans during one of the most partisan periods in recent American political history.
Obama's campaign was one of the most discplined in recent memory, although Dubya's first campaign in 2000 was a close second. Religiously on message 24/7, and impervious to leaking of any information, they were like a gestapo of liberalism (forgive the unfortunate analogy). That is, until they floated HRC as the next Secretary of State. Choosing possilbly the most polarizing politician in the past ten years (save for Mr. Rodham himself), and unconcerned about the inevitable baggage that her husband brings with him everywhere she goes. "No Drama Obama?" On the contrary, it seems as though Mr. Obama's talk of a new Politic was nothing more than just talk.
Look I know that all candidates make promises they have no intention of keeping if elected, but during the primary season, he was pretty tough on HRC, his talking heads pointing out she had little foriegn policy experience, not to mention repeated implication that having Hilary as the nominee would be a step into the past politics of partisanship. How's that for a 180?
Interestingly, if ever there was a president-elect who could appoint centrist advisors with very little risk of political fallout it is Obama; his party has a real shot at 60 seats in the senate pending results of a recount in Minnesota and a runoff in Georgia. He has a unique opportunity to appear bipartisan while not having any real need to do so - he can pretty much name his agenda and the sheep in the Senate won't even wake up long enough fromt thier after-election hangover to put up a fight. So why wouldn't he at least appear non-partisan as he repeatedly promised during the campaign?
Instead, the train keeps on rolling down the track, a full head of steam headed east tot he Whitehouse, but every stop more bloated liberal baggage is packed into the boxcars. Soon, I fear, the momentum of a momentous election will have been spent repaying the far-left liberals that just won't leave this guy alone.
Obama's campaign was one of the most discplined in recent memory, although Dubya's first campaign in 2000 was a close second. Religiously on message 24/7, and impervious to leaking of any information, they were like a gestapo of liberalism (forgive the unfortunate analogy). That is, until they floated HRC as the next Secretary of State. Choosing possilbly the most polarizing politician in the past ten years (save for Mr. Rodham himself), and unconcerned about the inevitable baggage that her husband brings with him everywhere she goes. "No Drama Obama?" On the contrary, it seems as though Mr. Obama's talk of a new Politic was nothing more than just talk.
Look I know that all candidates make promises they have no intention of keeping if elected, but during the primary season, he was pretty tough on HRC, his talking heads pointing out she had little foriegn policy experience, not to mention repeated implication that having Hilary as the nominee would be a step into the past politics of partisanship. How's that for a 180?
Interestingly, if ever there was a president-elect who could appoint centrist advisors with very little risk of political fallout it is Obama; his party has a real shot at 60 seats in the senate pending results of a recount in Minnesota and a runoff in Georgia. He has a unique opportunity to appear bipartisan while not having any real need to do so - he can pretty much name his agenda and the sheep in the Senate won't even wake up long enough fromt thier after-election hangover to put up a fight. So why wouldn't he at least appear non-partisan as he repeatedly promised during the campaign?
Instead, the train keeps on rolling down the track, a full head of steam headed east tot he Whitehouse, but every stop more bloated liberal baggage is packed into the boxcars. Soon, I fear, the momentum of a momentous election will have been spent repaying the far-left liberals that just won't leave this guy alone.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Free Market of Ideas?
Several recent items struck me as prime examples of "Ridiculous Media Oversimplification of a Complex Issue that Becomes Conventional Wisdom in the Face of Evidence to the Contrary". I know I've got to come up with a catchier name for this, but that will come later...
- Oil is down to below $60 a barrel. When gas was $4.29 a gallon and oil was $140 a barrel, the evil oil companies were reaping obscene profits. The popular theory was that a handful the "big oil" executives meeting in a smoke-filled room in Dubai three years ago to fix prices at levels so they could use some of their obscene profits to buy another Gulfstream for the house in Aspen. With prices down, they must have all gotten together again and decided that profits were no longer important, simultaneously coming to their senses and decided to emulate Mother Theresa. Or maybe supply is up and demand is down - wait that's crazy talk!
- The latest nonsense: apparently oil and gas prices dropping is a proof positive that the economy is tanking. I'm not sure which economist developed the theory that "the economy" and "gas and oil prices" have a direct positive relationship. By extension then, last year when prices were at historic highs the economy must have also been at an all-time high. So why were Hillary and Obama constantly ranting about how bad the ''Bush Economy" was last year during the primaries? Hmmm...
- Global Warming is causing more and more violent hurricanes. This assertion was second only to the Law of Gravity for absolute irrefutable laws of science after the Katrina hurricane season. Funny how I haven't heard any "global cooling" theories spring up since we've had some of the least active hurricane seasons on record since
And so it goes that Groupthink rules the American information age. I continue to be amazed that as more and more media and information outlets arise, there are fewer and fewer dissenting opinions presented. There is a rush to make unsubstantiated grand proclamations as iron-clad fact, and to the the first to do so. Presenting an accurate picture of a complex issue is completely unimportant - all that matters is providing and uninformed opinion first. The result is that each outlet just imitates all the others in a rush to be the first to be wrong to the exactly the same degree as the rest.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
GRANHOLM?!? - Honestly, of the literally hundreds of people that he could have had on stage with him at his first presser as president elect, and he chooses the chief executive of the state with the single worst economy over the past five years of ANY STATE OF THE UNION? As a resident of Michigan who has personally felt the sting of a one-state recession for the past half decade, I really hope he appoints her energy secretary - terrible for the country, but good for Michigan. Anything would be an improvement in my home state.
For a president elect so perpetually aware of image and symbolism, this can only be described as baffling!
For a president elect so perpetually aware of image and symbolism, this can only be described as baffling!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)