Traverse City Record-Eagle

Blogs

Change it is

Troy Keith, The Armchair ConservativeThe American people have clearly spoken, and I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief now that we're done. I doubt very much that Mr. Obama will ever read my words, but congratulations on his historic victory are certainly in order. He ran a masterful campaign, capitalizing on our nation's uncertainty and lack of direction that will most likely be analyzed for years to come.

While we may not be able to completely close our country's book on the racial issue, we are undoubtedly on the last chapter, and I look forward to a day when people are judged solely upon the merits of their character and principles. It's no secret that I happen to disagree with nearly all of Barack Obama's principles, and I have questioned his character repeatedly, but I am comforted nonetheless by the fact that our nation has chosen to discard the chains of discrimination.

As throngs of chanting supporters took to the streets throughout the country, many were left to quietly contemplate their disappointment. Those on the right must now come to terms with the reality of a disappointing election result that was not altogether surprising. I think most sensed the coming mandate for change that has been laid at our feet, and the result was, by and large, inevitable.

In many ways, it's probably the best thing for the Republican party. While he remains one of the finest examples of character and country, John McCain was not the new face of conservatism. We've learned that moderates do not represent the future for this party, and if the Republicans wish to carry the conservative banner in the years ahead, they must go back to the drawing board and emerge with new packaging for the proven concepts of the past.

Conservatives are seeking a reaffirmation of the ideals that form the cornerstones of our country's greatest honor: independence, liberty, self determination and an inherent sense of pride and optimism.

I am hopeful for the future, and I have no doubt the sun will once again rise over our nation. The media will now be able to report the incredible progress made in the war, and both our troops and military leadership may be given the praise they so deeply deserve. We may now rejoice in falling gas prices, the strong foundations of our economy and the promise of big brother's ever present hand in our lives. We may even begin to see a story or two that's critical of our new president-elect.

Perhaps that's a bit cynical, but I am reminded of Midas or the story of the fisherman and his wife. We must always be careful what we wish for, because from time to time, we just may receive it.

You cannot see the future with tears in your eyes — Navajo saying

  • Patrick

    For the past 8 years, the Republicans have bred a culture of division through polarizing politics and personal attacks on the opposition rather than the issue. The bar is at an all-time low. Until the party can enter a civilized substantive debate on governance, it is doomed to fail. This is not even close to the party of Reagan as so many like to believe, this is the party of entitlement that truly believes it occupies the moral high ground, who habitually label dissenters as un-patriotic, un-godly or bad people. What happened to the marketplace of ideas and spirited debate? Ask the President-elect who answered that question, which also resonated across the country. If you truly believe the alternative to moderate conservative ideals will come in the form of a Sarah Palin like figure, who many are predicting to run in 2012, you should be even more careful what you wish for, because the 10% first-time voters who overwhelmingly vote Democrat will be almost twice as strong in 4 years and generally don’t respond well to the Fox News and Talk Radio conformism.

  • troykeith

    I don't think Palin is the answer although she was able to articulate much of the frustration that many conservatives are feeling these days. Both sides have become parties of entitlement and I wouldn't know about spirited debate issue because Obama first agreed to and then opted out of the 10 town hall debates McCain had proposed. As far as question of patriotism goes, there have been a number of questionable statements by many on the left that would call that into question and those on the right that questioned Obama were often labeled as racists so which is worse? I tend to excuse the first time voters because they're young and naive – it also takes awhile to get our current education system out of their heads, but hopefully they'll have their eyes open before the next election.

    I think it's time to look beyond much of this as we will have more serious matters before us in the years ahead. He's obviously going to have to at least give the appearance of shifting a bit to the center but I still think we're in for at least one term of leadership that's equivalent to Carter on steriods.

  • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

    Sitting here in JFK waiting for my next flight. It's good to be home. Canton, Connecticut this week, Leelanau Peninsula next week.

    The UK went crazy over this election. Our neighbors stayed up until 3 last night to watch the returns on BBC. The driver bringing me down to Heathrow this morning could not stop talking about it….for 2 hours.

    There is palpable sense of relief and hope in the air over here in the States due to Obama's huge victory. Mostly relief, to my mind. I'm glad he won. I hope the man can live up to all the high-flying expectations out there.

  • Patrick

    For the past 8 years, the Republicans have bred a culture of division through polarizing politics and personal attacks on the opposition rather than the issue. The bar is at an all-time low. Until the party can enter a civilized substantive debate on governance, it is doomed to fail. This is not even close to the party of Reagan as so many like to believe, this is the party of entitlement that truly believes it occupies the moral high ground, who habitually label dissenters as un-patriotic, un-godly or bad people. What happened to the marketplace of ideas and spirited debate? Ask the President-elect who answered that question, which also resonated across the country. If you truly believe the alternative to moderate conservative ideals will come in the form of a Sarah Palin like figure, who many are predicting to run in 2012, you should be even more careful what you wish for, because the 10% first-time voters who overwhelmingly vote Democrat will be almost twice as strong in 4 years and generally don’t respond well to the Fox News and Talk Radio conformism.

    • Oldbluelightjackson

      To only accuse the Republicans of breeding a culture of division and making personal attacks on the opposition is quite biased and naive. A quick glance at newspaper articles, political speeches, and political cartoons from the 1800′s and early 1900′s would reveal that being divisive is as old as politics itself. As for the threat of an overwhelming vote from the Democrats in 2012 can also be made about the Republicans. The pendulum of political power swings back and forth, never staying stationary. This may sound pessimistic, but the reality is that promising a complete and lasting “Kumbaya” love fest between the parties is like promising permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and human nature being what it is, it’s not going to happen. That is why some of our brightest and able young people avoid serving the country in political office, it is quite often a disgusting experience.

  • troykeith

    I don’t think Palin is the answer although she was able to articulate much of the frustration that many conservatives are feeling these days. Both sides have become parties of entitlement and we wouldn’t know about spirited debate issue because Obama first agreed to and then opted out of the 10 town hall debates McCain had proposed.

    As far as the question of patriotism goes, there have been a number of “questionable” statements by many on the left that easily be considered unpatriotic – those on the right that questioned Obama were often labeled as racists so which is worse?

    It’s easy to talk the party line, but division has come from both camps and it was only exaggerated for the Republicans by very one sided reporting. The actions and comments of Pelosi, Reid, Murtha and others have been deplorable.

    I tend to excuse the first time voters because they’re young and naive – it also takes awhile to get our current education system out of their heads, but hopefully they’ll have their eyes open before the next election.

    I think it’s time to look beyond much of this as we will have more serious matters before us in the years ahead. He’s obviously going to have to at least give the appearance of shifting a bit to the center but I still think we’re in for at least one term of leadership that’s equivalent to Carter on steroids.

    • Patrick

      Mr. Keith, I find it ironic that McCain criticized Obama (who was very accessible to the media) for his town hall decision when Sarah Palin was the first VP candidate in history to forgo a press conference and many two-way dialogues with the press. Anecdotally, the Republican Party typically painted this election as good people vs. Evildoers, with the Democrats portraying the election as good ideas vs. bad ideas. As an independent, I think this made the difference and I agree that radicalism on either side is counterproductive. And in the end there was an opposite Bradley effect, with more closet Obama voters who didn’t want to deal with their friends telling them they were bad people for an Obama vote but let their actions speak in the voting booth. This polarization does not bode well for the future of the Republican Party. Claiming millennials are naive is also ironic and insulting considering they were the most shaped by the last 8 years of the current administration. I would call them pragmatists, rather than the sheep who allow the one-dimensional Rush and Fox news to shape their world view.

      • troykeith

        Fair enough.. The R’s ran a terrible campaign and did not bring much of substance to the table. I might also add that it wasn’t so much an election of good ideas vs. bad ideas – In my mind it was a question of some questionable ideas (Obama) vs. no ideas at all (on McCain’s part).

        I have pointed previously to the hatchet jobs done on the editing of Palin’s three major MSM interviews – Gibson, Couric and Griffin. The effort was obvious and portrayed her in an extremely negative light. She should have been more accessible, but I can also understand McCain’s hesitation given they way they’ve been treated by most of the press. It’s a moot point now, but http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/09/13/abc-news-edited-out-key-parts-sarah-palin-interview if you’d like to see an example.

        Regardless of the VP interviews, I think people should have been given an opportunity to see more unscripted debates between the presidential candidates. Obama may have been accessible to the media, but they also treated him very kindly. Those that didn’t were not given access (or thrown off the plane).

        How is it that Fox and Rush are always synonymous with one-dimensional, hateful partisanship yet MSNBC or the NY Times are viewed as “mainstream news”?

  • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

    Sitting here in JFK waiting for my next flight. It’s good to be home. Canton, Connecticut this week, Leelanau Peninsula next week.

    The UK went crazy over this election. Our neighbors stayed up until 3 last night to watch the returns on BBC. The driver bringing me down to Heathrow this morning could not stop talking about it….for 2 hours.

    There is palpable sense of relief and hope in the air over here in the States due to Obama’s huge victory. Mostly relief, to my mind. I’m glad he won. I hope the man can live up to all the high-flying expectations out there.

    • Anonymous

      It is amazing the excitement abroad! A blogging friend from the Netherlands said that Obama’s victory has caused quite the stir over there. In a good way, that is.

    • troykeith

      [Todd & Kierstin] I’m wondering why you think that is (international support) and if that’s necessarily a good thing? I couldn’t say yet either way, but the skeptic in me tends to think it may have more to do with things like the global poverty fund and what could be perceived as a diminishment in our power – both in economic and military terms. It would be great if we could all just “get along” now that we’ve elected a new president, but we’re already seeing some posturing in Russia and Israel.. I would think that more is to come.

      Do you think that the majority of our greatest presidents were welcomed immediately by the rest of the world?

      • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

        Well, I think international support is important in the sense that we do, like it or don’t, live in an increasingly integrative and shrinking global community. Consequently, if we can play nice on the international stage and increase the national weal as we do it, then that it is good. It is bad if we define ourselves and tailor our policy by the perceptions and opinions of other nations. That’s Sally Field diplomacy, and thus, ridiculous.

        Why such support? Simple. Bush is loathed over in W. Europe. It is a great mystery to the majority of Europeans how someone like Bush can be elected in our system. They perceive him as a myopic, unintelligent cowboy, unbendable in his ways not because he is exercising some kind of virtuous “resolve,” but because he doesn’t have the cognitive capacity to deal in an environment of subtlety, nuance, and uncertainty. Not a charitable view. I actually find myself defending him quite often, which I can’t do very well.

        In the President-elect they see a literate, intelligent, inclusive and pluralistic symbol of change and hope. They see a guy who, they believe, “gets it.” That’s what I think, anyway.

        Keep watching what Putin/Medvedev do in the Ukraine and the Baltics. That will be a huge test for Obama, if it waits until after inauguration.

        • troykeith

          I’m wondering if “they” does not mean “you”? It seems to me that you’ve described Bush in a similar fashion on a number of occasions. He is difficult to defend in terms of his presentation (and many policies), but I still give him credit for not wavering on most of his core principles such as the war and terrorism in general. I’ve seen a couple of biographical interviews and he always comes across as genuine, albeit somewhat howdy-doodi’ish. I have no excuse for the bail out or the rampant growth of gov’t we’ve seen in recent years.

          Despite our numerous shortcomings, I think many are envious of our success and power. While I’m sure that a number of world leaders genuinely like Mr. Obama, I would also have to think that many see him as a great equalizer. I don’t know how it could be charted, but my guess is that in general, the more liberal a president’s policies, the more widely accepted he is on the world stage – just a theory though.

          • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

            Fair point. Not totally me, but somewhat. I’m not as mean as they are. I think he is a cowboy. I think he lacks an appropriate cerebral edge and an ability to think critically about strategic issues. But my biggest problem is his idea of “resolve as value.” But I know that you admire that in him.

            Truth be told, I feel very sorry for him right now. He has the apprioval ratings of Warren G. Harding, and I’m not sure those #s are deserved.

          • troykeith

            Well, don’t let this get around, but I think the media may have at least some responsibility in those numbers.. I’m always struck by the fact that he never seemed to fight back against so many obvious fallacies (and outright lies), but perhaps that’s just his misguided sense of what it means to be presidential in this day and age.

            He did make a lot of mistakes – so many that it’s difficult to put them all into perspective. Or maybe he has access to information that we never will and his actions/policies are actually sound? It’ll be interesting to see how history treats his presidency.

          • Oldbluelightjackson

            According to the lates Gallup poll, Congressmen should be pitied even more with their meger approval rating of 20%. What does that say about Congress’ ability to think critically about strategic issues?

      • Oldbluelightjackson

        Troy, does Theodore Roosevelt ring a bell?

  • G Hayes

    Again, I am trying to conjure an appropriate title for your latest “writing”; 'Load of Crap' is what immediately comes to mind.

    Starting with your sentence “…capitalizing on our Nation's uncertainty and lack of direction…”, you attempt to marginalize Obama's victory. The reality is that the results of 2008 combined with the results of 2006 show that the country has rejected the Republican party. What the party must do, as I stated in my last post, is regroup and find its' identity. And that identity lies with the Republican party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Weicker and Nixon. not the party of Reagan, Bush and Palin.

    Both you and the clod Rush Limbaugh are trying to use an argument that is, in fact, an ad populum fallacy.

  • troykeith

    And here I thought I was trying to be nice.. Yes, the next candidate could run with a slogan of “Nixon for the new generation”.. I can see it now.

    “Capitalizing on our nation’s desire to willingly cede our sovereignty and an inane need to lower our standard of living to that of the rest of the world” – better?

  • G Hayes

    Again, I am trying to conjure an appropriate title for your latest “writing”; ‘Load of Crap’ is what immediately comes to mind.

    Starting with your sentence “…capitalizing on our Nation’s uncertainty and lack of direction…”, you attempt to marginalize Obama’s victory. The reality is that the results of 2008 combined with the results of 2006 show that the country has rejected the Republican party. What the party must do, as I stated in my last post, is regroup and find its’ identity. And that identity lies with the Republican party of Eisenhower, Rockefeller, Weicker and Nixon. not the party of Reagan, Bush and Palin.

    Both you and the clod Rush Limbaugh are trying to use an argument that is, in fact, an ad populum fallacy.

    • troykeith

      And here I thought I was trying to be nice.. Yes, the next candidate could run with a slogan of “Nixon for the new generation”.. I can see it now.

      “Capitalizing on our nation’s desire to willingly cede our sovereignty and an inane need to lower our standard of living to that of the rest of the world” – better?

    • http://www.michigantaxes.com Ed Burley

      G,
      I am on the tail end of my support of the Republican Party. I can guarantee you that if the party returns to the roots of Eisenhower, Nixon and both Bushes; and rejects the party of Goldwater and Reagan, it will receive no more votes from me.

      Only someone who doesn’t have a clue about economics would put Bush with Reagan. Goldwater and Reagan (and Ron Paul) Republicanism is that of limited government, free markets and peace through strength. Eisenhower was a General, Rockefeller a rich snob, Weicker a New England liberal, and Nixon a Fabian boob. That is what he shares with Bush. Both Republican presidents (Nixon and Bush) inflated the economy beyond recognition only to leave the mess to economically-incompetent Democrats. Our only hope now is that Mr. Obama is the pragmatist that some claim him to be.

      If Mr. Obama sets partisanship aside (like he claims he will), and seeks solutions, rather than ideology, he may just be what this country needs. That is my hope and prayer. I will be praying for President Obama every day of his presidency, hoping that he will listen to people who know economics, rather than Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or John McCain.

  • Patrick

    Mr. Keith, I find it ironic that McCain criticized Obama (who was very accessible to the media) for his town hall decision when Sarah Palin was the first VP candidate in history to forgo a press conference and many two-way dialogues with the press. Anecdotally, the Republican Party typically painted this election as good people vs. Evildoers, with the Democrats portraying the election as good ideas vs. bad ideas. As an independent, I think this made the difference and I agree that radicalism on either side is counterproductive. And in the end there was an opposite Bradley effect, with more closet Obama voters who didn’t want to deal with their friends telling them they were bad people for an Obama vote but let their actions speak in the voting booth. This polarization does not bode well for the future of the Republican Party. Claiming millennials are naive is also ironic and insulting considering they were the most shaped by the last 8 years of the current administration. I would call them pragmatists, rather than the sheep who allow the one-dimensional Rush and Fox news to shape their world view.

  • jeff

    Nice blog Troy, I'm with you.

  • jeff

    Nice blog Troy, I’m with you.

    • troykeith

      Thanks Jeff – he is our President now and my instinct is to support him (as I did Bush) but I still have a lot of reservations about how this is all going to play out. I’d much rather see him succeed than have my skepticism proven right. Maybe we’re more evolved than I’ve thought and we’re ready to usher in some kind of new age in the world arena but my money would be against that.

      I’d also like to suspend judgment until we see how things are shaping up in regards to his many promises and the policies that emerge, but the Rahm Emanuel appointment doesn’t exactly seem to support the “new tone” we’re supposed to be seeing in Washington.

      • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

        I disagree on the CoS appointment. It would have been scarier to me if he had gone with Daschle. Emmanuel is a political centrist, with a massive amount of respect (and not a little fear) felt from the legislative branch. Bringing in such a tough guy to truly “execute” the vision tells me that we will have a President who will be engaged, interested, and very active in “the Vision thing.” He’ll be smart if he keeps Gates in Defense. I think he will.

        • troykeith

          Centrist? Kind of like the way Sean Hannity could be considered a moderate.. I guess having the opportunity to be exposed to alternative viewpoints is one of the reasons I enjoy this – of course, I also like to be yelled at and called names from time to time.

          According to a recent NYT article:

          “Mr. Emanuel’s supporters say his reputation for a big ego, over-the-line volatility and take-no-prisoners partisanship is overblown and out of date, rooted still in the Clinton years.”

          Perhaps his recent stint at Fannie Mae mellowed him a bit..

          • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

            We probably define our terms a bit differently. Degree of partisanship is not the same thing as political ideology. You can be a Centrist ideologue, but also a ferocious partisan. That’s Emmanuel.

            Speaking of Hannity, I just ran across this video,
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c

            It is an exchange between SH and the Press Secretary in-waiting, regarding the Ayers and the issue of personal and professional associations. I know its an issue near and dear to your heart and thought you might enjoy the clip.

          • troykeith

            I’m not sure it’s much of a debate at this point – let’s give them a couple of months and we’ll see how “center-right” the Obama White House shapes up to be. For what it’s worth, Tim Graham comments below:

            =============
            “Emanuel’s American Conservative Union average since joining the House in 2003 is a 13, with a 4 in 2006 and a zero in 2007. The Americans for Democratic Action voting index is even more emphatic: Emanuel averages out (by my math) to a 96 percent liberal score.
            His ADA scores: 95 percent in 2003, 100 percent liberal perfection in 2004 and 2005, 90 percent in 2006, and 95 percent in 2007.
            Just a few days ago, Sesno noticeably announced in the same morning slot that “The era of Big Government is back.” Emanuel’s record matches that sentiment.”
            =============

            Nice video..thanks. Hannity can be a dufus at times – O’Reilly is much better and probably wouldn’t have been manipulated like that. I’m sure that will play very well with the left, but I thought the comparison was pretty weak.

            The association issue never went anywhere because the media has downplayed it to such an extent. If McCain had even a fraction of the same baggage, he would have been out in the first month – even the hyper-partisans would have to admit that.

            The way that anything calling Obama’s judgment into question has been immediately downplayed and dismissed reminds me of the gov’t efforts to assign UFO believers to the lunatic fringe in the 50’s and 60’s.

            It’s not just that he sat on a board or passed someone in the hallway once in awhile because they shared an office building, but that’s how they want to spin it. It’s not a limited, one-time event, but a continuous string of questionable associations with “unsavory” and decidedly anti-american people that goes back consistently for decades. Sure, everyone knows or runs into dubious people in their life, but if you see the pattern repeating for decades, most would consider that there might be a common denominator in the mix.

            I think that anyone doing the research into this stuff is going to find a lot of BS, but you’re also confronted with one thing after another and another and another.. to just deny outright that there’s nothing there at all is about as ridiculous as saying that Obama would encourage another round of Ayer’s terrorism. I’d even be willing to chalk it up to Chicago politics as usual, but whatever it is, I’m pretty sure it’s not as benign as they’re making it out to be.

          • Jeff

            HAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!!!!!! Hannity was squirming !! didnt want to let him finish, but finally let him … that was awesome. Excellent find Todd.

          • troykeith

            I think you may have missed my point above.. How is a commentator interviewing a variety of subjects on the same level as the association situation? Remember now, it’s not just sitting on the Annenburg board. They’re neighbors, Ayer’s talks about Obama in his book and Obama “blurbed” for Ayer’s book, they spent several years in the same office building, dealt with million dollar issues together, he started his campaign in Ayer’s home, attended the same parties together, had mutual friends (Khalidi and others) and worked together on a variety of projects.

            http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/12/the-obama-ayers-top-ten-highlights-of-the-20-year-obama-ayers-connection/

            It’s obviously not going anywhere or getting any traction, but to think that this guy is scoring any points in that interview is kind of a stretch. Sean is still a dufus though.

  • Kierstin

    It is amazing the excitement abroad! A blogging friend from the Netherlands said that Obama's victory has caused quite the stir over there. In a good way, that is.

  • troykeith

    [Todd & Kierstin] I’m wondering why you think that is (international support) and if that’s necessarily a good thing? I couldn’t say yet either way, but the skeptic in me might tends to think it may have more to do with things like the global poverty fund and what could be perceived as a diminishment in our power – both in economic and military terms. It would be great if we could all just “get along” now that we’ve elected a new president, but we’re already seeing some posturing in Russia and Israel.. I would think that more is to come.

    Do you think that the majority of our greatest presidents were welcomed immediately by the rest of the world?

  • troykeith

    Thanks Jeff – he is our President now and my instinct is to support him (as I did Bush) but I still have a lot of reservations about how this is all going to play out. I'd much rather see him succeed than have my skepticism proven right. Maybe we’re more evolved than I’ve thought and we’re ready to usher in some kind of new age in the world arena but my money would be against that.

    I’d also like to suspend judgment until we see how things are shaping up in regards to his many promises and the policies that emerge, but the Rahm Emanuel appointment doesn’t exactly seem to support the “new tone” we’re supposed to be seeing in Washington.

  • troykeith

    Fair enough.. The R's ran a terrible campaign and did not bring much of substance to the table. I might also add that it wasn’t so much an election of good ideas vs. bad ideas – In my mind it was a question of some questionable ideas (Obama) vs. no ideas at all (on McCain’s part).

    I have pointed previously to the hatchet jobs done on the editing of Palin’s three major MSM interviews – Gibson, Couric and Griffin. The effort was obvious and portrayed her in an extremely negative light. She should have been more accessible, but I can also understand McCain’s hesitation given they way they’ve been treated by most of the press. It’s a moot point now, but http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2008/… if you’d like to see an example.

    Regardless of the VP interviews, I think people should have been given an opportunity to see more unscripted debates between the presidential candidates. Obama may have been accessible to the media, but they also treated him very kindly. Those that didn’t were not given access (or thrown off the plane).

    How is it that Fox and Rush are always synonymous with one-dimensional, hateful partisanship yet MSNBC or the NY Times are viewed as “mainstream news”?

  • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

    Well, I think international support is important in the sense that we do, like it or don't, live in an increasingly integrative and shrinking global community. Consequently, if we can play nice on the international stage and increase the national weal as we do it, then that it is good. It is bad if we define ourselves and tailor our policy by the perceptions and opinions of other nations. That's Sally Field diplomacy, and thus, ridiculous.

    Why such support? Simple. Bush is loathed over in W. Europe. It is a great mystery to the majority of Europeans how someone like Bush can be elected in our system. They perceive him as a myopic, unintelligent cowboy, unbendable in his ways not because he is exercising some kind of virtuous “resolve,” but because he doesn't have the cognitive capacity to deal in an environment of subtlety, nuance, and uncertainty. Not a charitable view. I actually find myself defending him quite often, which I can't do very well.

    In the President-elect they see a literate, intelligent, inclusive and pluralistic symbol of change and hope. They see a guy who, they believe, “gets it.” That's what I think, anyway.

    Keep watching what Putin/Medvedev do in the Ukraine and the Baltics. That will be a huge test for Obama, if it waits until after inauguration.

  • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

    I disagree on the CoS appointment. It would have been scarier to me if he had gone with Daschle. Emmanuel is a political centrist, with a massive amount of respect (and not a little fear) felt from the legislative branch. Bringing in such a tough guy to truly “execute” the vision tells me that we will have a President who will be engaged, interested, and very active in “the Vision thing.” He'll be smart if he keeps Gates in Defense. I think he will.

  • troykeith

    Centrist? Kind of like the way Sean Hannity could be considered a moderate.. I guess having the opportunity to be exposed to alternative viewpoints is one of the reasons I enjoy this – of course, I also like to be yelled at and called names from time to time.

    According to a recent NYT article:

    “Mr. Emanuel’s supporters say his reputation for a big ego, over-the-line volatility and take-no-prisoners partisanship is overblown and out of date, rooted still in the Clinton years.”

    Perhaps his recent stint at Fannie Mae mellowed him a bit..

  • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

    We probably define our terms a bit differently. Degree of partisanship is not the same thing as political ideology. You can be a Centrist ideologue, but also a ferocious partisan. That's Emmanuel.

    Speaking of Hannity, I just ran across this video,
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgn6rjGbp0c

    It is an exchange between SH and the Press Secretary in-waiting, regarding the Ayers and the issue of personal and professional associations. I know its an issue near and dear to your heart and thought you might enjoy the clip.

  • troykeith

    I’m not sure it’s much of a debate at this point – let’s give them a couple of months and we’ll see how “center-right” the Obama White House shapes up to be. For what it’s worth, Tim Graham comments below:

    =============
    “Emanuel's American Conservative Union average since joining the House in 2003 is a 13, with a 4 in 2006 and a zero in 2007. The Americans for Democratic Action voting index is even more emphatic: Emanuel averages out (by my math) to a 96 percent liberal score.
    His ADA scores: 95 percent in 2003, 100 percent liberal perfection in 2004 and 2005, 90 percent in 2006, and 95 percent in 2007.
    Just a few days ago, Sesno noticeably announced in the same morning slot that “The era of Big Government is back.” Emanuel's record matches that sentiment.”
    =============

    Nice video..thanks. Hannity can be a dufus at times – O’Reilly is much better and probably wouldn’t have been manipulated like that. I’m sure that will play very well with the left, but I thought the comparison was pretty weak.

    The association issue never went anywhere because the media has downplayed it to such an extent. If McCain had even a fraction of the same baggage, he would have been out in the first month – even the hyper-partisans would have to admit that.

    The way that anything calling Obama’s judgment into question has been immediately downplayed and dismissed reminds me of the gov’t efforts to assign UFO believers to the lunatic fringe in the 50’s and 60’s.

    It’s not just that he sat on a board or passed someone in the hallway once in awhile because they shared an office building, but that’s how they want to spin it. It’s not a limited, one-time event, but a continuous string of questionable associations with “unsavory” and decidedly anti-american people that goes back consistently for decades. Sure, everyone knows or runs into dubious people in their life, but if you see the pattern repeating for decades, most would consider that there might be a common denominator in the mix.

    I think that anyone doing the research into this stuff is going to find a lot of BS, but you’re also confronted with one thing after another and another and another.. to just deny outright that there’s nothing there at all is about as ridiculous as saying that Obama would encourage another round of Ayer’s terrorism. I'd even be willing to chalk it up to Chicago politics as usual, but whatever it is, I'm pretty sure it's not as benign as they're making it out to be.

  • troykeith

    I'm wondering if “they” does not mean “you”? It seems to me that you've described Bush in a similar fashion on a number of occasions. He is difficult to defend in terms of his presentation (and many policies), but I still give him credit for not wavering on most of his core principles such as the war and terrorism in general. I’ve seen a couple of biographical interviews and he always comes across as genuine, albeit somewhat howdy-doodi’ish. I have no excuse for the bail out or the rampant growth of gov’t we’ve seen in recent years.

    Despite our numerous shortcomings, I think many are envious of our success and power. While I’m sure that a number of world leaders genuinely like Mr. Obama, I would also have to think that many see him as a great equalizer. I don’t know how it could be charted, but my guess is that in general, the more liberal a president’s policies, the more widely accepted he is on the world stage – just a theory though.

  • Jeff

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH !!!!!!!!!! Hannity was squirming !! didnt want to let him finish, but finally let him … that was awesome. Excellent find Todd.

  • http://blogs.record-eagle.com/?cat=26 Todd

    Fair point. Not totally me, but somewhat. I'm not as mean as they are. I think he is a cowboy. I think he lacks an appropriate cerebral edge and an ability to think critically about strategic issues. But my biggest problem is his idea of “resolve as value.” But I know that you admire that in him.

    Truth be told, I feel very sorry for him right now. He has the apprioval ratings of Warren G. Harding, and I'm not sure those #s are deserved.

  • troykeith

    Well, don't let this get around, but I think the media may have at least some responsibility in those numbers.. I'm always struck by the fact that he never seemed to fight back against so many obvious fallacies (and outright lies), but perhaps that's just his misguided sense of what it means to be presidential in this day and age.

    He did make a lot of mistakes – so many that it’s difficult to put them all into perspective. Or maybe he has access to information that we never will and his actions/policies are actually sound? It’ll be interesting to see how history treats his presidency.

  • Oldbluelightjackson

    To only accuse the Republicans of breeding a culture of division and making personal attacks on the opposition is quite biased and naive. A quick glance at newspaper articles, political speeches, and political cartoons from the 1800's and early 1900's would reveal that being divisive is as old as politics itself. As for the threat of an overwhelming vote from the Democrats in 2012 can also be made about the Republicans. The pendulum of political power swings back and forth, never staying stationary. This may sound pessimistic, but the reality is that promising a complete and lasting “Kumbaya” love fest between the parties is like promising permanent peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and human nature being what it is, it's not going to happen. That is why some of our brightest and able young people avoid serving the country in political office, it is quite often a disgusting experience.

  • Oldbluelightjackson

    Troy, does Theodore Roosevelt ring a bell?

  • Oldbluelightjackson

    According to the lates Gallup poll, Congressmen should be pitied even more with their meger approval rating of 20%. What does that say about Congress' ability to think critically about strategic issues?

  • troykeith

    I think you may have missed my point above.. How is a commentator interviewing a variety of subjects on the same level as the association situation? Remember now, it’s not just sitting on the Annenburg board. They’re neighbors, Ayer’s talks about Obama in his book and Obama “blurbed” for Ayer’s book, they spent several years in the same office building, dealt with million dollar issues together, he started his campaign in Ayer’s home, attended the same parties together, had mutual friends (Khalidi and others) and worked together on a variety of projects.

    http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/08/12/the

    It’s obviously not going anywhere or getting any traction, but to think that this guy is scoring any points in that interview is kind of a stretch. Sean is still a dufus though.

  • Toni

    Hahaha. Troy, you just couldn't write a positive post about the election, could you? You made it 90% of the way without the sour grapes, and then you blew it. For a moment there, you had me…I thought you were going to accept defeat graciously.

  • Toni

    Hahaha. Troy, you just couldn’t write a positive post about the election, could you? You made it 90% of the way without the sour grapes, and then you blew it. For a moment there, you had me…I thought you were going to accept defeat graciously.

    • http://www.michigantaxes.com Ed Burley

      Yeah Toni, just like the way you folks accepted defeat in 2000. Good grief, Democrats are still whining about it.

      • Jeff

        Ed, you must be talking about the election where the democratic candidate got more votes than the republican candidate then got the supreme court to pick the republican ?Not whining, just the facts.

        • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

          It truly is amazing how many of you who learned about the Constitution, not by reading it, but by listening to dupes like Obermann and Matthews.

          The Constitution of the United States set up the Electoral College. There is no such thing in the Constitution about a popular vote for President – NOTHING! Each legislature, in each state, was to determine a way to select their electors. Those electors would then go to Washington in December and cast their votes. The person getting the most electoral votes would be president.

          What happened in Florida was simple: the Florida legislature, due to the fiasco that Gore was creating, decided to select its electors for Bush, as the Constitution allows it to do. The Florida Supreme Court, which has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY in regards to elections, butted in and attempted to circumvent the Constitution by demanding recount after recount until Gore won. The U.S. Supreme Court, who DOES have authority in regards to elections (to determine if each state is abiding by the Constitution), overruled the Florida Court and sided with the Legislature and the federal Constitution.

          So, constitutionally Bush won, in Florida and Electorally. Popular vote has nothing to do with the election of President. Prove me wrong constitutionally and I’ll admit my error. Unfortunately for you, you can’t.

          The same thing applies in the case of the Senate. In the original constitution, senators were to be selected by the various state legislatures (while the Representatives would be elected by popular vote). After the amendment that determined that Senators would be elected by popular vote in each state, thus superceding the original Constitution, the federal gov’t stole the right of each state to determine it’s representation. IOW, had there been dirty dealing in a senatorial election (like we are seeing with Franken/Coleman), it would have been the state that decided who won. But, with the amendment changing election law, the Feds now will probably have to step in again and decide who is the victor in the Minnesota race.

          Next time you want to debate the Constitution, you might want to read it first. Until the liberals are finally successful in totally destroying it, it is still the supreme law of the Land – and we are still a Republic (a representative democracy under rule of law), not a pure democracy (i.e., one man one vote).

          So, if you are going to debate me, bring the constitution…not your fifth grade education.

          • troykeith

            Nicely said Ed although I’m starting to question what power the Constitution will hold in the years ahead.

            A few quick quotes from an Obama radio interview:

            “…But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

            “So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can — any three of us sitting here can come up with a — a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

            “As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted — and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you. But it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.”

            “I think we can say that, the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two viewers are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that, uh, it also, uh, reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.”

          • Jeff

            Wow, easy Ed. Your comment could be construed as “bashing” me or “name calling.” Troys blog is a simple debate. I don’t hate you, I dont hate your ideas, I respect your words. In fact, I’ll fight to the death to let you say them – this is America. One thing I won’t do though, is try to belittle you. In fact, my masters degree (not my 5th grade education) taught me this. As for the debate – in my mind there is no debate. If Gore had been appointed president by our right wing supreme court we wouldnt be in the dire straits we are today… of course, though, this didnt happen as Bush appointed the right people … oh well, we’ve got Obama to straighten us out.

          • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

            Again Jeff, you are ignorant of the Constitution. You did not make one single point that countered mine. This is typical of the anti-Constitution liberals that we have in this country. First, our government indoctrination centers fail to teach our children the Constitution, as is evidenced by the repeated attempt ad nauseum to claim that Bush was “appointed president by our right wing supreme court.”

            There is no doubt that Pres. Bush made some major errors in his years in the White House; however, to claim that Gore would have been any better…you cannot prove any such thing – you have no proof that Al Gore may not have done worse; it is a ridiculous assertion.

            One thing we do know, economics dictates that manipulation of the markets (through such things as minimum wage laws, artificially low interest rates, inflation by fiat money, etc.) always results in economic disaster – as is evidenced by the last two years of Democrat control.

            The fact that you have a Masters Degree and are still this ignorant of the basic foundational document of our country is proof of how awful the government indoctrination centers really are. Thank you for proving my point. Before you pointed it out to me, I figured that someone like you couldn’t have actually graduated, but since you did, and then went on to get a graduate degree proves my point exactly.

          • Jeff

            ED !!!! EASY BIG BOY !! But, I did get a chuckle from your words …. When you said “ignorant” and “indoctrination centers” I thought at first you were talking about organized religion !!!! GOBAMA !!

          • Jeff

            ED !! and again, I was not trying to “counter” you … that’s the problem with politics. We can go back and forth and back and forth and nobody wins, nobody is right. ITS ALL OPINION !!! PERIOD. Its my opinion, its your opinion. done. Now, if we were to say, take d(x) 3YY, we’d get 6Y. There is no debate there. The beautfy of science and math. I won’t try to argue with you Ed. In fact, 90% of my words were just to bait you and get you all stirred up … as George W said … “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!”

          • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

            Gee Jeff, if it’s all opinion, then show me the constitutional justification for yours. As usual, you are too ignorant to even know what the word “ignorant” means. It’s simple enough for you to overcome your ignorance – read the Constitution.

            Not really sure where the “organized religion” comment came from. Has anyone mentioned organized religion anywhere else on this blog entry?

          • Jeff

            I dont think the constiturion has any reference to a “hanging chad” …. hence the OPINION that its a vote that DOES or DOESNT count…. thus the stolen election that you know happened. Nowhere else in this blog does it mention our schools and universities as “indoctrination centers” but you veered off topic that way so i thought I’d take a swipe back since I have a feeling you might be knee deep in that stuff.

          • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

            hanging chad? Let’s try this from the Constitution:

            “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

            Article II, Section I, Paragraph 2.

            As I have pointed out several times on this thread, the power to appoint electors is in the hands of the LEGISLATURE of the respective states. The FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, at the time a Republican body, chose electors to vote for Bush. It was the Florida Supreme Court, who had NO POWER to make any decision concerning electoral politics, who fussed about “hanging chads.” Because the FSC violated the Constitution by demanding recount after recount, the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled them – seeing as how the SCOTUS does have jurisdiction in electoral politics, determining the constitutionality of the decisions regarding that document.

            Stolen election? Only to people ignorant of our national government. That would include all Democrats and half the Republicans who make a big deal about how when all the ballots were finally counted, Bush had still won Florida. It doesn’t matter. Once the Florida Legislature constitutionally determined who their electors were voting for, it was over.

            Try getting educated Jeff. Ignorance isn’t very becoming.

            ed

          • Jeff

            There is a name for your type of education Ed. Two words come to mind. 1. Indoctrination 2. Brainwashing 3. Time to cook some “slow food” today, how about a nice stew cooked over an open fire in a big iron pot. Potatoe, rutabaga, celery, beef, in a rich tomato sauce. You should be a Univery Prof teaching constitutional Law mr. ed, i’m impressed with your knowledge base, but my opinion is still that the election was stolen. You’ll not convince me otherwise, even if you’re mean.

          • Jeff

            wow, i thought the republicans only stole it from GORE, looks like they stole it from Kerry too !! Ouch. Now i’m double bummed. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/was_the_2004_election_stolen Read up Mr. Ed. – Troy are you avoiding us or busy with ur next blog?

          • Jeff

            Hey, this sums up my OPINION nicely Mr. Ed. What’s your OPINION ? http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

            interesting numbers from these opinionated democrats

          • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

            Like I said, articles by democrats who are ignorant of the constitution mean nothing. The constitution of the u.s. dictates how elections are run, and all it says is that each individual state’s legislature PICKS its electors, and the way in which those electors are picked.

            Florida’s legislators picked all 25 of their electors for Bush.

            BTW, even if the claims by the democrats meant a damn thing, these reports were proven false…and we won’t mention all the military absentee ballots that never got counted…or the number of white people turned away from the polls in Philadelphia by self-identified “Black Panthers.”

            You want to make this a tit-for-tat kind of exchange, while I have stuck with the constitutional facts. I’m not mean – you’re just ignorant. However, since I’ve explained it to you, and shown you the text from the constitution, and you still have no argument…that’s bordering on stupid, and as we all know, “you can’t fix stupid.”

        • troykeith

          Crazy system isn’t it? Maybe we should do away with the Electoral College altogether –one person, one vote, each one carrying the same weight as the next.

          • faygokid

            Cool. That would have meant President Gore, and we could have been saved from the disaster of the past eight years.

          • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

            This is the most asinine argument…liberals make claims that can never be proven true OR false. Even had this election put Al Gore in the White House, the “starting point” would be different. No one can judge Gore as president because it never happened, nor will it. Again, even if Gore is elected in our future, it is a different starting point, a different time. No one can judge Gore a better OR worse president.

            We can only hope that you people are right about Obama. I am praying for him to do the right thing, contrary to you folks who did nothing but find fault in Bush for 8 years. My only argument is constitutional (and economic). Bush won, constitutionally (and you and Jeff have failed to prove otherwise); and he was/is no fiscal conservative.

            That’s what we need, a fiscal conservative. Our deficit has doubled, as well as our national debt with Bush at the helm. However, if Obama spends like he has promised, the deficit and debt will get even worse. How can that make things better?

            As I said, you are ignorant of both the constitution and economics.

          • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

            Actually, it was/is a brilliant system. It gives power to the smaller states, rather than having all the power placed in specific large states.

            The representatives in the House represents based on population, the Senate on equal representation for each collective, i.e., the states. This gives each state an equal say in their federal gov’t, but at the same time, since EVERY spending bill must originate in the House, it is the populace, rather than the states who retain the greatest power.

            The reason Bush won in 2000 was simple. In all those “blue states” Gore won by a large margin, while in the “red states” Bush won by small margins. Bush also won more states than Gore, although Gore many of the larger states. Ultimately, Gore had more “popular votes” which the Constitution could care less about, but he won the electors. That’s what the Constitution says elects a president.

            The problem with the “system” is not what our Fathers established, but what it has become. We have made our presidents far more than the Constitution ever intended them to be. Gene Healy wrote a book called “The Cult of the Presidency.” I am going to read it, and the excerpts that I have read on Cato’s website are pretty good. In it he makes the point that the election of President was never meant to elect a savior, an economist, or even a warrior. It was to elect a person who would add to the balance of power already existing in the houses of Congress. One more level of protection. The President was to be the Commander-in-Chief DURING WAR, but war was to entered into only by declaration by Congress. IOW, the President couldn’t enter a war just so he could take his Commander title.

            In fact, the Constitution only authorizes a Navy, not a standing army. That’s where militias came in – and I am not talking the National Guard.

            It’s sad that so few people know the Constitution, especially those who expect Obama to save them. They’ll be disappointed. Not that he might not turn out to be a decent president, but he’s only a man…I know that’s difficult for Obamaites to admit, but it’s true.

            Oh well, I’m tired.

          • Anonymous

            The same fools that voted for Obama thinking that he will take care of their mortgage, are going to be begging him to do more and more to “fix” the economy, and he will only be too kind to try.

            We are doomed.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.com Ed Burley

    G,
    I am on the tail end of my support of the Republican Party. I can guarantee you that if the party returns to the roots of Eisenhower, Nixon and both Bushes; and rejects the party of Goldwater and Reagan, it will receive no more votes from me.

    Only someone who doesn't have a clue about economics would put Bush with Reagan. Goldwater and Reagan (and Ron Paul) Republicanism is that of limited government, free markets and peace through strength. Eisenhower was a General, Rockefeller a rich snob, Weicker a New England liberal, and Nixon a Fabian boob. That is what he shares with Bush. Both Republican presidents (Nixon and Bush) inflated the economy beyond recognition only to leave the mess to economically-incompetent Democrats. Our only hope now is that Mr. Obama is the pragmatist that some claim him to be.

    If Mr. Obama sets partisanship aside (like he claims he will), and seeks solutions, rather than ideology, he may just be what this country needs. That is my hope and prayer. I will be praying for President Obama every day of his presidency, hoping that he will listen to people who know economics, rather than Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, or John McCain.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.com Ed Burley

    Yeah Toni, just like the way you folks accepted defeat in 2000. Good grief, Democrats are still whining about it.

  • Jeff

    Ed, you must be talking about the election where the democratic candidate got more votes than the republican candidate then got the supreme court to pick the republican ?Not whining, just the facts.

  • troykeith

    Crazy system isn’t it? Maybe we should do away with the Electoral College altogether –one person, one vote, each one carrying the same weight as the next.

  • troykeith

    Nicely said Ed although I'm starting to question what power the Constitution will hold in the years ahead.

    A few quick quotes from an Obama radio interview:

    …But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

    So I mean I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally, you know, I think you can — any three of us sitting here can come up with a — a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.

    As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted — and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.

    I think we can say that, the Constitution reflected an enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don't think the two viewers are contradictory, to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that, uh, it also, uh, reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.

  • faygokid

    Cool. That would have meant President Gore, and we could have been saved from the disaster of the past eight years.

  • Jeff

    Wow, easy Ed. Your comment could be construed as “bashing” me or “name calling.” Troys blog is a simple debate. I don't hate you, I dont hate your ideas, I respect your words. In fact, I'll fight to the death to let you say them – this is America. One thing I won't do though, is try to belittle you. In fact, my masters degree (not my 5th grade education) taught me this. As for the debate – in my mind there is no debate. If Gore had been appointed president by our right wing supreme court we wouldnt be in the dire straits we are today… of course, though, this didnt happen as Bush appointed the right people … oh well, we've got Obama to straighten us out.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

    Actually, it was/is a brilliant system. It gives power to the smaller states, rather than having all the power placed in specific large states.

    The representatives in the House represents based on population, the Senate on equal representation for each collective, i.e., the states. This gives each state an equal say in their federal gov't, but at the same time, since EVERY spending bill must originate in the House, it is the populace, rather than the states who retain the greatest power.

    The reason Bush won in 2000 was simple. In all those “blue states” Gore won by a large margin, while in the “red states” Bush won by small margins. Bush also won more states than Gore, although Gore many of the larger states. Ultimately, Gore had more “popular votes” which the Constitution could care less about, but he won the electors. That's what the Constitution says elects a president.

    The problem with the “system” is not what our Fathers established, but what it has become. We have made our presidents far more than the Constitution ever intended them to be. Gene Healy wrote a book called “The Cult of the Presidency.” I am going to read it, and the excerpts that I have read on Cato's website are pretty good. In it he makes the point that the election of President was never meant to elect a savior, an economist, or even a warrior. It was to elect a person who would add to the balance of power already existing in the houses of Congress. One more level of protection. The President was to be the Commander-in-Chief DURING WAR, but war was to entered into only by declaration by Congress. IOW, the President couldn't enter a war just so he could take his Commander title.

    In fact, the Constitution only authorizes a Navy, not a standing army. That's where militias came in – and I am not talking the National Guard.

    It's sad that so few people know the Constitution, especially those who expect Obama to save them. They'll be disappointed. Not that he might not turn out to be a decent president, but he's only a man…I know that's difficult for Obamaites to admit, but it's true.

    Oh well, I'm tired.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

    Again Jeff, you are ignorant of the Constitution. You did not make one single point that countered mine. This is typical of the anti-Constitution liberals that we have in this country. First, our government indoctrination centers fail to teach our children the Constitution, as is evidenced by the repeated attempt ad nauseum to claim that Bush was “appointed president by our right wing supreme court.”

    There is no doubt that Pres. Bush made some major errors in his years in the White House; however, to claim that Gore would have been any better…you cannot prove any such thing – you have no proof that Al Gore may not have done worse; it is a ridiculous assertion.

    One thing we do know, economics dictates that manipulation of the markets (through such things as minimum wage laws, artificially low interest rates, inflation by fiat money, etc.) always results in economic disaster – as is evidenced by the last two years of Democrat control.

    The fact that you have a Masters Degree and are still this ignorant of the basic foundational document of our country is proof of how awful the government indoctrination centers really are. Thank you for proving my point. Before you pointed it out to me, I figured that someone like you couldn't have actually graduated, but since you did, and then went on to get a graduate degree proves my point exactly.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

    This is the most asinine argument…liberals make claims that can never be proven true OR false. Even had this election put Al Gore in the White House, the “starting point” would be different. No one can judge Gore as president because it never happened, nor will it. Again, even if Gore is elected in our future, it is a different starting point, a different time. No one can judge Gore a better OR worse president.

    We can only hope that you people are right about Obama. I am praying for him to do the right thing, contrary to you folks who did nothing but find fault in Bush for 8 years. My only argument is constitutional (and economic). Bush won, constitutionally (and you and Jeff have failed to prove otherwise); and he was/is no fiscal conservative.

    That's what we need, a fiscal conservative. Our deficit has doubled, as well as our national debt with Bush at the helm. However, if Obama spends like he has promised, the deficit and debt will get even worse. How can that make things better?

    As I said, you are ignorant of both the constitution and economics.

  • Jeff

    ED !!!! EASY BIG BOY !! But, I did get a chuckle from your words …. When you said “ignorant” and “indoctrination centers” I thought at first you were talking about organized religion !!!! GOBAMA !!

  • Jeff

    ED !! and again, I was not trying to “counter” you … that's the problem with politics. We can go back and forth and back and forth and nobody wins, nobody is right. ITS ALL OPINION !!! PERIOD. Its my opinion, its your opinion. done. Now, if we were to say, take d(x) 3YY, we'd get 6Y. There is no debate there. The beautfy of science and math. I won't try to argue with you Ed. In fact, 90% of my words were just to bait you and get you all stirred up … as George W said … “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!!”

  • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

    Gee Jeff, if it's all opinion, then show me the constitutional justification for yours. As usual, you are too ignorant to even know what the word “ignorant” means. It's simple enough for you to overcome your ignorance – read the Constitution.

    Not really sure where the “organized religion” comment came from. Has anyone mentioned organized religion anywhere else on this blog entry?

  • Jeff

    I dont think the constiturion has any reference to a “hanging chad” …. hence the OPINION that its a vote that DOES or DOESNT count…. thus the stolen election that you know happened. Nowhere else in this blog does it mention our schools and universities as “indoctrination centers” but you veered off topic that way so i thought I'd take a swipe back since I have a feeling you might be knee deep in that stuff.

  • thrashertm

    Troy, pretty good post. Thank goodness McCain lost; his brand big government win-at-any-cost conservatism needs to be snuffed out. He sold out his party and every principle he ever stood for in this election. I have voted for the guy in 2000.

    Unfortunately, we are left with Barack Obama, who will only too happily lead this country over the cliff into an economic death spiral, while continuing to allow our horrific empire of largess overseas.

    I pray that I am wrong about Obama, but his record shows that I am not.

  • thrashertm

    The same fools that voted for Obama thinking that he will take care of their mortgage, are going to be begging him to do more and more to “fix” the economy, and he will only be too kind to try.

    We are doomed.

  • Anonymous

    Troy, pretty good post. Thank goodness McCain lost; his brand big government win-at-any-cost conservatism needs to be snuffed out. He sold out his party and every principle he ever stood for in this election. I have voted for the guy in 2000.

    Unfortunately, we are left with Barack Obama, who will only too happily lead this country over the cliff into an economic death spiral, while continuing to allow our horrific empire of largess overseas.

    I pray that I am wrong about Obama, but his record shows that I am not.

  • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

    hanging chad? Let's try this from the Constitution:

    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

    Article II, Section I, Paragraph 2.

    As I have pointed out several times on this thread, the power to appoint electors is in the hands of the LEGISLATURE of the respective states. The FLORIDA LEGISLATURE, at the time a Republican body, chose electors to vote for Bush. It was the Florida Supreme Court, who had NO POWER to make any decision concerning electoral politics, who fussed about “hanging chads.” Because the FSC violated the Constitution by demanding recount after recount, the SCOTUS stepped in and overruled them – seeing as how the SCOTUS does have jurisdiction in electoral politics, determining the constitutionality of the decisions regarding that document.

    Stolen election? Only to people ignorant of our national government. That would include all Democrats and half the Republicans who make a big deal about how when all the ballots were finally counted, Bush had still won Florida. It doesn't matter. Once the Florida Legislature constitutionally determined who their electors were voting for, it was over.

    Try getting educated Jeff. Ignorance isn't very becoming.

    ed

  • Jeff

    There is a name for your type of education Ed. Two words come to mind. 1. Indoctrination 2. Brainwashing 3. Time to cook some “slow food” today, how about a nice stew cooked over an open fire in a big iron pot. Potatoe, rutabaga, celery, beef, in a rich tomato sauce. You should be a Univery Prof teaching constitutional Law mr. ed, i'm impressed with your knowledge base, but my opinion is still that the election was stolen. You'll not convince me otherwise, even if you're mean.

  • Jeff

    wow, i thought the republicans only stole it from GORE, looks like they stole it from Kerry too !! Ouch. Now i'm double bummed. http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334… Read up Mr. Ed. – Troy are you avoiding us or busy with ur next blog?

  • Jeff

    Hey, this sums up my OPINION nicely Mr. Ed. What's your OPINION ? http://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=181

    interesting numbers from these opinionated democrats

  • http://www.michigantaxes.com/wordpress Ed Burley

    Like I said, articles by democrats who are ignorant of the constitution mean nothing. The constitution of the u.s. dictates how elections are run, and all it says is that each individual state's legislature PICKS its electors, and the way in which those electors are picked.

    Florida's legislators picked all 25 of their electors for Bush.

    BTW, even if the claims by the democrats meant a damn thing, these reports were proven false…and we won't mention all the military absentee ballots that never got counted…or the number of white people turned away from the polls in Philadelphia by self-identified “Black Panthers.”

    You want to make this a tit-for-tat kind of exchange, while I have stuck with the constitutional facts. I'm not mean – you're just ignorant. However, since I've explained it to you, and shown you the text from the constitution, and you still have no argument…that's bordering on stupid, and as we all know, “you can't fix stupid.”

Record-Eagle Blogs is proudly powered by WordPress
Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).