Down with the Drive-By's

What's Behind Wal-Mart Backing Obamacare?

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:28:00 +0000

Wal-Mart announced yesterday that it would be backing Obamacare. Why, you might ask, is Wal-Mart doing this when almost every other business interest is against it? The bottom line is your answer.
Obama's plan calls for a mandate that businesses either offer health benefits to their employees or pay into the public plan. Wal-Mart stated yesterday in a letter to Congress that they will back this plan as long as the mandate is based on a profit per employee basis, and not a per employee basis. Wal-Mart is the largest employer in the US. Having that many employees drives the per employee profit way down.
In case you didn't know, I work for Wal-Mart. I have worked there going on thirteen years. Among my friends and family, a lot of whom lean or have fallen over to the left, I have been Wal-Mart's greatest defender. After all, who among us has taken better advantage of our free market society?
A few months ago, I remember hearing Rush Limbaugh quote from a book about Wal-Mart. The author had set out to really get them. They were evil and he was going to show the world. For research sake, he applied for a job there. Once he was in, he changed his tune. When he got involved in the culture, when he found out that department managers there were running their own little businesses inside of a Wal-Mart building (the Wal-Mart lingo for that is "Store Within A Store" or SWAS) he could not say enough good things about them and the book he intended to write never materialized, while a pro-WM book did.
Lately, though, Wal-Mart has changed. Gone are the days of SWAS. Department managers at store level used to be able to say, "This is a good item for my department/community. I think I'll order a couple of hundred of them and promote the heck out of it!" Now, just like our government, WM has centralized all of its power at its corporate office. Your local Wal-Mart is no longer allowed to order in items that it thinks will sell well in your community. That is all dictated by Bentonville now.
I recently commented on this to a co-worker. "Every day," I said. "Wal-Mart is becoming more like Washington." We both laughed a little, then sighed because we knew it was true. Strong central office, strong central government.
Now we have WM backing the most liberal president ever and his ridiculous attempt at nationalizing health care. Wal-Mart's reason behind this is quite devious, however. Wal-Mart is looking at the public option. When O gets his way, and we have his precious public option, many of WM's employees will opt out of their paid plans and go on the government dole. When they do this, costs for providing health benefits for its employees will plummet, even after they pay their profit-per-employee based fee to the government. Basically, every other business in the country will be paying the tab for WM's employees. Since the public option will most likely be means-based, many of Wal-mat's lower paid employees will qualify.
Mr. Sam, as the long-timers at Wal-Mart call him, is turning in his grave!

A great iPhone App

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 19:12:00 +0000

Posted at my new blog App-lesauce:

By: iPhone FLOSS
Site: http://www.iphonefloss.com
Release Date: June 2, 2009
Click on the icon to download app.

Being a part-time political blogger(read amateur) myGovernment is one of the more amazing apps that I have come across. It will live on my iPod long afer I have forgotten about other "favorite" apps. The scope of the information that you can get from this app is amazing.
The app is divided into four tabs: Congress, Bills, Spending, and Community.

Screenshots:

The Congress tab lists all of the members of congress separated by House and Senate. Clicking on the name of the representative gives you quick links to call, email, mention on Twitter, or post a comment in the built in community. Clicking on the blue arrow next to the name gives you all contact information, Info Stream, which is a list of websites in which the rep participates(website, youtube, facebook, etc.). You will also get any committee assignments for the rep and any recent news activity.
The Bills tab functions just like the Congress tab. Clicking on a bill will allow you to get sponsor info, the full text of the bill, a Twitter mention button, and a comment button for the community. The blue arrow provides you with a link to the bill text, sponsor and co-sponsor information, and the history of the bill.
The Spending tab allows you to see spending by state, congressional district, or contractor. (I could never get the contractor info to load, though. Clicking on the state or district allows you to contact the representatives, or Twitter mention on the spending of that district/state. Clicking on the blue arrow gives you a breakdown of how much the district/state is spending, who the representatives are, and for which contractor the money was spent.
The Community tab lets you see and post messages/replies to the community forum.
This app is full of information for citizens to make informed decisions on election day. It is also a good tool for the poilitcal bloggers out there. I will give myGovernment a 10 out of 10.

Top 5 Flubs of First 100 Days

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 23:00:00 +0000

Obama celebrates his 100th day in office today, so in honor of that DWTDBs would like to commemorate the event with the top 5 Obama flubs:

Number 5
Obama Cannot Nominate Anyone Who Paid Their Taxes

President Obama admitted he made a "mistake" in his handling of Tom Daschle's Cabinet nomination, telling FOX News on Tuesday that he takes full responsibility for a process that ended in Daschle withdrawing his name amid tax problems. 02-03-09

He also nominated Timothy Geithner, Nancy Killefer, and Hilda Solis. Killefer's and Solis' problems were relative small, but tax cheat Geithner would go on to run the economy carte blanche with the authority of a little line from TARP "NECESSARY ACTIONS.—The Secretary is authorized to take such actions as the Secretary deems necessary to carry out the authorities in this Act, including, without limitation, the following: Designating financial institutions as financial agents of the Federal Government, and such institutions shall perform all such reasonable duties related to this Act as financial agents of the Federal Government as may be required."

Number 4
Released Guantanamo Detainees Return to Terrorism

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says the U.S. hasn’t done a good job sorting out who should be released from the Guantanamo Bay detention center.
Obama says in a broadcast interview that some of the people released from the facility in Cuba have rejoined terrorist groups. He also says U.S. officials have not always been effective in determining which prisoners will be a danger once they are let go.

The current proposal has Obama placing the terrorists in American jails where they will be granted American rights. There has even been talk of having to release some of them onto American soil because no other country will have them.

Number 3
Obama White House Stages 9-11 Re-enactment

Federal officials knew that sending two fighter jets and a 747 from the presidential fleet to buzz ground zero and Lady Liberty might set off nightmarish fears of a 9/11 replay, but they still ordered the photo-op kept secret from the public.

In a memo obtained by CBS 2 HD, the Federal Aviation Administration's James Johnston said the agency was aware of "the possibility of public concern regarding DOD (Department of Defense) aircraft flying at low altitudes" in an around New York City. But they demanded total secrecy from the NYPD, the Secret Service, the FBI and even the mayor's office and threatened federal sanctions if the secret got out.

Causing thousands of New Yorkers to relive the horror of 9-11 is definitely worth $328,000, isn't it?

Number 2
Obama Chooses His Brackets

Duke Coach Mike Krzyazewski didn’t care for President Obama’s picks for the Final Four after he was told that his team wasn’t chosen. Coach K said that Obama should focus more on the economy than brackets. Obama replied by saying that Duke wasn’t picked because they have no inside game.
Here is what Coach K said to the AP about Obama’s bracket, "Somebody said that we're not in President Obama's Final Four, and as much as I respect what he's doing, really, the economy is something that he should focus on, probably more than the brackets.” Of course, I think the coach might have a different reaction if Obama would have chosen his team instead of hated rival North Carolina to win it all . 03-19-09

There is a kind of a sub-flub to go along with this that he only got one team right.

And the award for Number 1 Flub of the First 100 Days goes to:
Obama Bowls Like He is in the Special Olympics

And then, fatally, he visibly relaxed. The arms waved around more, he made camp little asides to the rapturous audience. Leno asked, laughing, about the bowling alley he inherited at the White House, first built as a birthday present for Truman in 1947, upgraded by the Nixons — paid for by friends — in 1969, and upgraded again by Bush.

"I imagine the bowling alley has just been burned and closed down?" Leno asked.

"No, no," Obama protested, "I have been practising bowling, I bowled" — fluttering his eyelashes with mock modesty, to audience whoops, "a 129."

"Oh no, that's very good, yeah," Leno said sarcastically, "that's very good — Mr President."

"Like Special Olympics or something ..." Obama said, laughing.
Replaying the clip — as people did endlessly today — it sounded more a response to Leno's mock patronising fulsome praise than his own bowling skills. But the cameras also caught a nanosecond flicker of shock on the faces of both men, knowing that the damage was done. 03-19-09

Really! One would think that the most liberal senator, now the most liberal President would be a little more caught up on PC things to say on a talk show. Then again, I don't think guests on the Tonight Show get a teleprompter.

Honorable Mention goes to this teleprompter failure at a recent speech to the National Academy of Science:

Mr. President, if I may offer you some advice, and since you are asking for ideas that will work: "Have a Plan B. Buy some notecards."

One more thought - If Bush was learning how to be President from Cheney, then it appears that Obama is indeed learning from Biden.

Here a Hundred Million, There a Hundred Million

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:05:00 +0000

Every where a hundred million...

President Obama is asking every department to cut $100 million from its budget. An article over at The Heritage Foundation has an excellent graphic of what $100 million looks like next to the porkulus bill and the even more enormous federal budget for 2010.

I just wanted to give some more comparisons to show how minute these cuts really are:

$100 Million is to $3.69 trillion as the population of Wyoming is to the population of China.

$100 million is to $3.69 trillion as Earth is to the sun...

...if the sun were 342 times as big as it is now.

$100 million is to $3.69 trillion as a sockeye salmon is to a blue whale.

Laid end to end, $3.69 trillion in thousand dollar bills would circle the earth 2.34 times.

Laid end to end, $100 million in thousand dollar bills would run for 9.46 miles roughly the distance from the White House to Falls Church, Virginia.

If the government found $100 million to cut every day, it would take them over thirty years to pay off the current national debt.

The current share of the national debt for every man, woman and child in the United States is $36,558.

The $3.69 trillion 2010 budget is equal to $12,056 for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

A $100 million dollar cut would equal 32 cents for every man, woman, and child in the United States.

To paraphrase Heritage, asking the government to cut $100 million from its budget is like asking a family bringing in $100,000 to cut out one cup of Starbuck's coffee. Not per day, per year.

How the Left Cuts Government

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:41:00 +0000

President Obama announced plans (really just intentions, not plans) to cut dozens of government programs deemed inefficient. How is he going to do that? By creating two new positions of course!

President Obama said Saturday that he would soon announce “the elimination of dozens of government programs shown to be wasteful or ineffective,” and he used his weekly radio address to name two new high-level officials to assist him in that effort.

If I were running a business, and had to cut my workforce, you can bet I wouldn't do it by hiring someone else. The city of Alexandria tried the same thing when they hired Michael Gillette, an ethicist, to make the decisions of what programs to cut. In case you are geographically challenged, Alexandria is very much a beltway town. How's that change working out for you?

Reactions to Our Tea Parties

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Fri, 17 Apr 2009 22:51:00 +0000

I attended the Richmond Area Tax Day Tea Party this week. I expected to come home and find coverage of the events on the news, and was disappointed to see that only Fox even bothered to cover the actual events. Not surprised, just disappointed. We had a good turnout - about 3,000 people. Richmond is a pretty staid community, with many of us preferring quiet evenings at home. So 3,000 Richmonders attending anything outside in the rain on a Wednesday is pretty good.

In the Richmond Times Dispatch the following day, the event earned a blah article below the fold on the front page. At the end of that article they ran the following quote from Hari Sevugan, press secretary for the Democratic National Committee:

"While we support the right of Americans to petition their government, what's clear is that the overwhelming majority of folks support President [Barack] Obama's plan to get the economy back on track and provide 95 percent of working families with tax relief, because they are no longer going to accept 'more of the same' as an answer."

Mr. Sevugan, what we have received is exactly that: the same government trying to spend their way out of out problems, only a whole lot more.

I culled the following lines from the Drive-By media as well:

CNN - Though financial-industry and automotive bailouts were launched at the end of George W. Bush's presidency, many demonstrators aimed their words and signs at the Obama administration, criticizing it in part for the recently passed stimulus package.

People at my event were blaming Bush and Obama for their reckless spending.

CBS - Of course, the tea party that seems to have inspired the comment - the Boston Tea Party, that iconic 1773 protest in which Massachusetts colonists dumped tea into Boston Harbor - was tied largely to taxation without representation by the British government. That’s no longer an issue for most Americans.

We, the folks, are not being represented by our elected officials. They are their representing themselves and their re-election interests. Show me the congressman or senator that will say, "I believe personally that I should vote for this huge spending bill, but the people of my district/state believe differently than I do, so I voted against it." That guy is destined for greatness.

Michael Steele is "Open to Anything, Baby!"

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 23:19:00 +0000

Thank God for Michael Steele! When I saw him on Cavuto yesterday saying that he would consider withholding RNC money from candidates who voted for the stimulus bill, my heart leapt. "Good," I thought. "The RNC doesn't need to be backing those RINOs anyway!" I mean, Neil really pressed him. He asked him point blank, "So, being open to that, baby, does that mean you would consider punishing them for that vote?"

In case you missed it, here is the video:

But the answer was not exactly yes, as posted by reporter (gag!) Jason Linkins over at HuffPo. Steele replies that the candidates will first have to answer to voters in their states at the primary level. He then says that if the state parties have a problem with the candidate, then so does the RNC. Now, if you have a slice of brain in your head, you will see that what he actually said was that there won't be a change of policy after all. If the candidate loses their primary, then the RNC will not back them financially. That may be the way Democrats want to do things, bailing out the losers and all, but that is not the way that the Republican party, or America for that matter, works.

Linkins quotes another blogger, Elana Schor, at Talking Points Memo, who said that Steele backtracked:

"It's totally up to the state parties," he told me, in a stark contrast to his comment on Fox that he would "talk to the state parties" about withholding funds to the three stimulus-supporting Republican senators.

Yes, he did say that he would talk to the state parties. I am sure, in the past, that if someone like Spectre or Snow were showing signs of trouble in the primaries, then the chairman might steer some high profile Republicans toward their state to get a little bump. But the campaign money wouldn't come until there was a winner, and that candidate would get funds because they won the primary and that's the way it works! I don't think they will get the kind of help that appearances and endorsements bring when it is their time for re-election.

He then makes that the claim that Steele backtracked (which I just showed that he did not) because he is afraid that the three would possibly caucus with the Democrats. Well, they should go ahead and do just that. It would be no loss to the Republican party if they lose three senators who are not adhering to the party's core principles. If I worked for the Washington Redskins and consistently did things that make the Dallas Cowboys defeat us, I would not expect too much support from the coach or the management staff. I would expect to be fired. But Steele did not say he would do that. In this scenario, Michael Steele is the coach, and the people of Pennsylvania and Maine are the management staff, and the management staff will fire anyone who is not performing up to their standards, ie senators who support small government and individual liberties and responsibilities.

You know what really gets my goat, though? This guy calls himself a reporter. I am relatively very new to the blogging world. I am a guy sitting at his kitchen who watches the news and reacts. I don't know for sure, and someone let me know if I am off base here, but I would think that people at HuffPo are professional bloggers. They may not get paid at HuffPo, but I am sure that the time spent posting there leads to hits on sites for which they do get paid. Mr. Linkins calls himself a reporter, but he can't be bothered to actually watch and listen to the video that he posted in his article. If he did, he might realize how full of crap he really is.

Obama's Contradictions Part II: The Messiah Strikes Back

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 01:04:00 +0000

When Obama was inaugurated, I kind of just watched with amusement when Dianne Feinstein introduced the "Oaf of Office". Chuckled when the "Oaf" was messed up, thinking it was Obama, then chuckling again when it turned out to be Roberts who flubbed. Anything that anyone considers funny is because of someone else's misfortune. Seeing someone fall down, step on a rake, take a pie in the face, or get nailed in the jewels by a kid with a pinata stick are hallmarks of comedy.

Well, I guess Obama is laughing his ass off right now as he has just kicked us all in the balls. The really bad thing, though, is that, right before he did it, he looked at us and said, "Don't worry, I'm not going to kick you in the balls. Just relax."

On Obama's first day, he brought with him new, tighter ethics rules. He put a salary freeze on high paid employees, saving the economy a few bucks. Kind of weak really, when you consider the task at hand, but the move is just dripping with symbolism, and the folks love their symbolism. How can anyone argue with tighter ethics rules and the symbolism of our beloved government making a sacrifice for the sake of its poor people, who have suffered for eight long years under the tyranny of George Bush. The kind of thing I would imagine a benevolent dictator doing after a successful coup.

Part of the tighter, and I use the word loosely, ethics rules was that people who have lobbied a particular interest within the government cannot work in the Obama administration for that particular department.

Obama called the rules tighter "than under any other administration in history." They followed pledges during his campaign to be strict about the influence of lobbyists in his White House.

He had to realize that this would rule out a lot of qualified people. The people who lobby for companies like Raytheon are experts in weaponry, aeronautics, and a whole range of other military technologies. This experience makes them extremely qualified for positions at the Pentagon. So Obama built in a waiver system to his executive order allowing for exceptions when it is best for national interests. The thing about making a rule, especially an ethics rule, is that you don't just turn around and break it yourself, not once but twice, two days later.

Bring in William Lynn, the top lobbyist for Raytheon. Despite his position, he has been tapped to take the number two spot at the Pentagon. It's okay, though. Obama has issued him an "Ethics Waiver" so that he can break his own rule.

Meanwhile, Obama's nomination for the No. 2 official at the Pentagon slowed as lawmakers considered whether William J. Lynn III might require an exemption from the administration's own lobbying rules. Lynn, who has broad support in Congress, had been considered a shoo-in for deputy defense secretary.

Then there is William V. Coor, who used to lobby the government on behalf of the Campaign for Tobacco Free kids. Obama tapped him to be the number two at the Department of Health and Human Services.

And don't forget about Tom Vilsak.

If we could charge money for these ethics waivers we could get the budget balanced and have economic growth for at least the next eight years. We could sell them to Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Tim Geithner, Rod Blagojevich, Bill Richardson, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and I'm sure that the Clintons would want to pick up a Family Four Pack.

Keeping Up with the Times

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:42:00 +0000

The NY Times, in the middle of trying to not go bankrupt and swatting away the scandal of printing a phony letter from the mayor of Paris, has lately turned to launching attacks at Obama in order to regain some of its stature. It's not surprising. From 2000 to 2008, they found good business in bashing Bush. Now that he and any Republican control of Congress is gone, the Times once again is choosing to promote its own agenda rather than focusing on being any kind of fair and balanced.

Oh, the Op/Ed page included the usual schlock from Mo Dowd, but there was another op/ed piece taking potshots at conservatism even though it was disguised as a criticism of Obama:

In what his aides billed as a major economic speech on Thursday, President-elect Barack Obama said that 2009 would “mark a clean break from a troubled past and set a new course for our nation.”

The “clean break” part of the statement seems an apt description for the spending part of Mr. Obama’s emerging, roughly $800 billion recovery package. He has outlined some $500 billion for bolstered unemployment benefits, aid to states and investment in the nation’s crumbling and outdated infrastructure.
But the tax-cut components of the package are hardly a clean break with the Bush years, presuming that is what Mr. Obama meant by the troubled past. To win the support of Republican lawmakers, the package is shaping up to include roughly $150 billion in business tax breaks, even though such breaks are widely recognized as packing very little bang for the buck when it comes to economic stimulus.

The business tax cut talked about here is the $3000 tax credit that a business will receive for spending at least $50,000 to hire a new employee. The writer is correct here. That, coupled with the tax breaks that businesses will undoubtedly receive for green efforts, will have little bang, since businesses will not spend tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to receive a few measly thousands of dollars in tax breaks.

The big thing that I took from that section, though? "Wow, they are comparing Obama to Bush! The Messiah being likened to the anti-christ in the Op/ed page of the NY Slime!"

The article has one more attack on tax cuts, though:

The proposed tax break — up to $500 for individuals and $1,000 for families — makes good sense for low- and middle-income Americans, because the money is likely to be spent quickly, thus boosting demand in a contracting economy. But higher up the income ladder — a couple making $200,000 a year is in the top 9 percent of households — tax cuts are likelier to be saved than spent, providing relatively little stimulus.

Tax breaks for 138 million taxpayers in the amount of $500 is $69 billion. Nine percent of that is $6.2 billion. That means that the plan will put over $63 billion back in the pockets of the american people who make less than $200,000 a year. So sinking $700 billion into banks, the auto industry, and credit card companies is okay. Five hundred billion spent on roads is okay. But try to give the people $69 billion of their own money and that is where the Times draws the line.

Reid's Rough First Week

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:27:00 +0000

Harry Reid may not be able to find the time to smell the tourists this year, judging by his first week leading this Senate. Democrats wanted to hit the ground running, but Rod Blagojevich tripped them up and instead, they hit the ground with a wet thud.

When Blago was arrested, Reid drew up a letter demanding that Blago resign and not make the appointment, and had all of the senate democrats sign it. In the letter, he said, "Please understand that should you decide to ignore the request ...and make the appointment, we would be forced to exercise our Constitutional authority under Article I, Section 5, to determine whether such a person should be seated."

Reid backed down from that statement the day after the pictures appeared of the black Roland Burris and his black entourage being stopped from entering the 'All White Mens' Club'.

Technically, the law is on Reid's side, though, as the Senate has the final say in who its members are.

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

Each House shall keep a journal of its proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such parts as may in their judgment require secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the members of either House on any question shall, at the desire of one fifth of those present, be entered on the journal.

Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting.

This is only one of the stumbling blocks that the democrats faced this week, as Bill "Horatio Sanz" Richardson withdrew his name from the nomination for Secretary of Commerce. This was a known issue to Obama's vetters since before his nomination, so there must be something there we don't know about.

Then there was the appointment of Leon Panetta as director of the CIA. Appointing an intelligence chief without any experience is about as smart as electing a president with absolutely no executive experience. Oh, wait, we did that one, didn't we?

Let's not forget about Obama's 'present' vote on the situation between Hamas and Israel. He conveniently use his new mantra "One President at a Time" in deferring all decisions about US reaction to the conflict to Bush. Come on, Bam-Bam, you only have ten days before this all falls in your lap. You must have some kind of opinion.

Finally, there was Obama's backtrack on his economic stimulus plan. This week, Obama told the country that we would be looking at huge deficits for years to come. Let me guess... four years? Eight years? In doing this, he has admitted that his plan won't work. He also revised the word 'created' to 'saved' when talking about jobs in his plan. This may have been smart on Obama's part. How do you measure a 'saved' job? Will he take credit for every job not done away with during his tenure? Using that standard, three million should be a fairly easy goal to reach.

So this is what it's like when the most ethical congress teams up with the chosen one to solve all of our country's woes. Flip-flopping, continued deficits despite a trillion dollar stimulus package, vacillating in the face of terrorism, questions of integrity... and that's just in the first week. This is going to be a looooooonnggg four years. I can only hope that the segment of the population who gets their news from Entertainment Tonight and The Daily Show really see what they have gotten us. It would be too much of a stretch for them to realize that this has been going on for the past two years and was being passed off as Bush's fault.

Fight Fire With A Cease Fire? Give Me a Break!

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 22:27:00 +0000

So the holidays are over. I took what was probably my first break from any kind of news since this time last year. I didn't watch it, and if it happened to be on, I focused on something else. Sometime yesterday, I actually caught myself wondering if I could stay outraged enough to keep up a daily schedule of posting, when I came across this wonderful piece of libtard crap from David Grossman in the NY Times:

Fight Fire With a Cease-Fire

NOW, after the heavy blow that Israel has dealt to the Gaza Strip, we would do best to halt, turn to the leaders of Hamas and tell them: Until last Saturday, we restrained ourselves in responding to the thousands of Qassam rockets fired at us. Now you know how severe the retaliation can be. So as not to add to the death and destruction that has already taken place, we intend, unilaterally and absolutely, to hold our fire for the next 48 hours.

Even if you continue to fire on Israel, we will not respond by resuming combat. We will grit our teeth, just as we did in the days and months before our attack. We will not be drawn into using force.

So Israel should give Hamas a chance to regroup and get some kind of cease fire drawn up? We have seen in the past how Hamas lives by the terms of its agreements.

Israel’s leaders know that, given the state of the Gaza Strip, it will be difficult to achieve a total, unambiguous military victory. Instead, we are more likely to return to the state of ambiguity we know so well from Lebanon. Israel will strike at Hamas and get struck, strike and get struck, get caught in tit-for-tat snares without achieving any real or vital aims. Despite our military strength, we will be unable to extricate ourselves, and will find that we have been carried away by a tide of destruction.

Mr. Grossman, do you not realize that this is exactly what you want to achieve with your appeasement? Israel needs to achieve a decisive victory. The only way to do that is to bring the hellfire. Instead of giving Hamas 48 hours to arange a cease fire, Israel should give the citizens of Gaza a stronger message. "We gave you your independence so you would stop attacking us. That did not work. You, the people of Gaza, elected Hamas to be your representatives in your government. Hamas has called for and is physically striving for the destruction of Israel. You now have 48 hours before the Israeli army and air force obliterate all systems of support for Hamas. Unfortunately for you, that would be your country. There is one way out. Unconditional surrender."

Ahh unconditional surrender. Remember when wars were allowed to end by one side admitting defeat to the other? Usually there was some sort of ceremony with the losing general giving the winning general his weapon and officially ending the war. I guess it's a good thing for Istael that the whole turn the other cheek philosophy didn't come around until Book II.

Merry Christmas

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 11:30:00 +0000

Congressional Ratings by Year

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 15:48:00 +0000

With a couple of weeks left in the year I thought it would be good to look back at the congressional job approval numbers for the year, and how they compare to previous years.

The numbers I am presenting come from pollingreport.com. What I did was take the average difference between people who approved of the job congress was doing and those who dissapproved. This includes a large number of polls (80-90 a year) from a good number of sources, so the sample is large.

During the year 2005, the first year on the site, congress earned itself an average -24% approval rating. Twenty-four percent more people thought that congress was doing a bad job than a good one. In 2006, that number jumped to -33.1%. This swing ushered in the Democratic majority that we enjoy(gag!) today.

The beginning of 2007 showed the momentum that the democrats had. The first few months of 2007 showed approval ratings from the single digits into the lower twenties. By August of 2007, people realized what the dems were up to and the rating jumped as high as -58% and stayed between the high 30's to low 50's for the rest of the year. The average for 2007 ended up being -32.9%, a negligible gain for the year.

By 2008 the people showed exactly what they thought of their new congress. The average score was a -53.2% difference in the people who thought congress was doing well vs. doing poorly. That shows a 20.3% jump in congress' disapproval rating. Numerous scores above 60% since October show what must be an alarming trend for the dems. In 2009, it will all be on them. Can anyone say backlash in the 2010 elections? How about mandate? I say that we end up seeing both.

The Employee Free Choice Act

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sun, 21 Dec 2008 04:05:00 +0000

The scariest section of text in the bill reads thusly:

`(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, whenever a petition shall have been filed by an employee or group of employees or any individual or labor organization acting in their behalf alleging that a majority of employees in a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining wish to be represented by an individual or labor organization for such purposes, the Board shall investigate the petition. If the Board finds that a majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for bargaining has signed valid authorizations designating the individual or labor organization specified in the petition as their bargaining representative and that no other individual or labor organization is currently certified or recognized as the exclusive representative of any of the employees in the unit, the Board shall not direct an election but shall certify the individual or labor organization as the representative described in subsection (a).

Since I started hearing about EFCA, all I have heard about is doing away with the secret ballot. What most people that I talk to seem to think is that instead of voting secretly, they will still be able to stand up during a vote and declare whether or not they want a union in their workplace. This is not so. What EFCA is trying to accomplish is the abolition of the vote altogether. Simply by signing a union card, you are casting your vote. In the past, signing a card meant nothing more than saying that you supported an election. Many people will sign the card thinking that this is still the policy.

With this slick little piece of legislation a union could easily turn a non-union company into a union company. Let's say a company has 200 employees, but seasonally hire 100 more employees to handle a larger workload. The union could flood the application pool with its supporters. All the union would have to do is get 50 more cards signed. One quarter of the the companies regular employees would, in effect, be deciding the union question for the other 75%. Under the system now, a vote would be scheduled, and by the time it is held, the seasonal workers would be gone. The union could get away with it, too. All it has to do is to pay its members while they look for jobs at non-union companies. It already pays its members to picket and disrupt businesses, so it's not too much of a stretch.

From the AFL-CIO website:

Here's Why We Need the Employee Free Choice Act:

America's Working Families Are Struggling

The middle class is stressed and shrinking, and working families are finding it harder to make ends meet. Wages just aren't keeping up with the cost of living, and job security, health coverage and the promise of a secure retirement are vanishing. Workers are hurting, and the entire economy is feeling the effects.

If they left wages alone, then the cost of living would be reigned in by wages. It's funny how businesses, when left alone, will not produce items that they cannot sell.

Corporations and CEO's have all the power

Corporations and CEOs aren't treating workers fairly. They cut back on workers' health care and wages, while CEO pay skyrockets. They intimidate workers who join together to negotiate a contract, while protecting their own perks and benefits.

During all of the attempts at organizing that I have been through, management has been very careful with what they say. It all seems to boil down to one rule: "No organizing on the clock. Save it for your breaks, lunches, and free time." That's it. Never have I heard, "If you vote for the union, you are fired."

But the system is broken

The best opportunity we have to rebuild the middle class and put workers on the right track is through giving workers the power to bargain for a better life. Union workers have better wages and are more likely to have health coverage, pensions and protections on the job that non-union workers—and where unions are strong, even non-union workers get better pay than in areas where unions are weak.

Look at the workers of GM and Chrysler and see where all this bargaining has gotten them - the same pay rate as non-union workers from foreign auto makers and a soon to be bankrupt company.

The Employee Free Choice Act Will Help Build an Economy That Works for Everyone

Unfortunately, current law puts the decisions about forming unions and bargaining in the hands of corporations, not workers. In our company-dominated system, corporations deny workers the freedom to choose a union, and they have free rein to coerce, intimidate and even fire employees to keep them from forming a union to bargain for their economic well-being.

Again, never seen anyone fired during an organization attempt. The system being proposed here leaves too many holes for fraud and corruption.

I also got a good laugh when I read this:

Supported by a bipartisan coalition in Congress and millions of workers around the country, the Employee Free Choice Act would level the playing field and put the power to choose a union back where it belongs—in the hands of workers. It will restore workers' power to bargain for a better life, rebuilding the middle class and strengthening the economy for the long term.

Their "bi-partisan" coalition consists of 279 members of the House and Senate. Of the 279, six are republicans from the northeast. Of the six republican, only four are still serving. In the Senate, there are no republicans signed on, just 45 democrats and two independents. That's very bi-partisan there, guys, way to go.

Obama's Contradictions

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:02:00 +0000

From Time Magazine's Man of the Year interview of Barack Obama:

"And outside of specific policy measures, two years from now, I want the American people to be able to say, "Government's not perfect; there are some things Obama does that get on my nerves. But you know what? I feel like the government's working for me. I feel like it's accountable. I feel like it's transparent. I feel that I am well informed about what government actions are being taken. I feel that this is a President and an Administration that admits when it makes mistakes and adapts itself to new information, that believes in making decisions based on facts and on science as opposed to what is politically expedient." Those are some of the intangibles that I hope people two years from now can claim."

We have our first example of Obama's "transparent" government in his reaction to the Blago case. "I had no contact with the Governor or his office," Obama said, "and so we were, I was not aware of what was happening."

As far as making decisions based on fact and science? Obama recently named John P. Holdren as his science advisor. This will be the person advising on the best use of technology to improve America, yet Holdren does not understand himself the way that technology can improve things like extraction of natural resources. This flaw alone could prove devastating for the American economy.

Obama also went back on his word about not employing lobbyists in the field for which they were lobbying he appointed Tom Vilsack as Secretary of Agriculture.

From 2000 to 2006, Vilsack, the former governor of Iowa, and his wife collected $42,782 in subsidies from the department he was tapped Wednesday to oversee.

Also, Vilsack is a partner at a lobbying law firm that trumpeted his advice to clients on agribusiness development and renewable energy – a job that appears to bump up against Obama’s promise to bar appointees from working on issues related to their employment for two years.

With all of Obama's backtracks, maybe it's a good thing he said he wanted to do things like bankrupt the coal industry during the campaign. At the rate he's going, we'll see a bailout for them instead.

Which Taxes to Raise, Which Services to Cut?

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 00:00:00 +0000

I read a very thought provoking and rather well thought out post today at DemConWatch. With the burst of the housing bubble, multiple industry bailouts, and loss of jobs, government at every level is looking at cutting services and raising taxes. But which services to cut? Which taxes to raise? Taxes are, after all, a necessary evil as our government needs to get funding from somewhere.

That article asked for comments from the readers, and I am doing the same. If taxes have to be raised, or services cut, which do you feel are necessary? Below is the comment I posted on their site. Just a little setup: the commenter before me posted a list of things like tax on gasoline, taxing incomes of the wealthy, and sin taxes. Here is my comment:

I heard something today...

The sin taxes might actually be detrimental to a budget in the long run. When they impose a sin tax, it is usually a little more about changing behavior rather than making money. In Virginia, Tim Kaine is proposing doubling the tax on cigarettes in order to offset the cost imposed on medicare and medicaid when smokers develop emphysema/lung cancer. If they didn't smoke, though, chances are that they would live much longer. We would have many more people living many more years and the cost of general health care for all of them, even if all they required were routine checkups and treatment for minor illneses, would equal more than the outlay under the system where individual freedoms may mean that people choose to live a little more recklessly.
As far as what services to cut? I agree with Karen-Anne in that there is a whole lot of waste that needs to be cut before any essential services lose a penny. They should look at expense accounts and future contracts, and they should definitely look for more efficient ways to govern before raising any taxes or cutting any services. If our leaders tell us that sacrifice is essential, they need to set that ball rolling by setting an example.

In the business that I am in, I have seen expenses in certain areas swing to the good by large amounts simply by stressing to the employees the importance of "best practices". I have seen the same accounts swing back terribly when those same practices are allowed to fall by the wayside. The difference? Better management led to the good swings while poor management led to the bad. Our leaders, no matter what the level of government, are being paid to manage their local/state/federal governments. It is time they start doing so.

Ayers, Wright, Rezko, Blagojevich, and Bill Richardson?

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:25:00 +0000

Bill Richardson, Obama's appointee for Secretary of Commerce, is now being investigated by a grand jury for allegedly giving California firm CDR Financial Services a lucrative government contract in exchange for campaign donations.

A person familiar with the proceedings told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the panel is looking into possible "pay-to-play" dealings between CDR Financial Products and someone in a position to push the contract through with the state of New Mexico.

So, how many corrupt politicians does it take to change Washington?
Just one, but he brings all his buddies with him, anyway.

Leadership: Academic Elitism vs Principled Wisdom

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 01:09:00 +0000

From Scott at Conservatism Today:

President-elect Barack Obama swiftly revealed the direction his team would take, as the Washington Post noted last Sunday:

All told, of Obama's top 35 appointments so far, 22 have degrees from an Ivy
League school, MIT, Stanford, the University of Chicago or one of the top
British universities...

While Obama's picks have been lauded for their
ethnic and ideological mix, they lack diversity in one regard: They are almost
exclusively products of the nation's elite institutions and generally share a
more intellectual outlook than is often the norm in government. Their erudition
has already begun to set a new tone in the capital, cheering Obama's supporters
and serving as a clarion call to other academics. Yale law professor Dan Kahan
said several of his colleagues are for the first time considering leaving their
perches for Washington...

Absent-Minded Professors

Just what America needs, huh? A bunch of pointy-headed theorists who have never accomplished anything outside of Planet Academia, rushing to Washington to tell inhabitants of the real world how we can solve all our problems.

We tried this "best and brightest" approach under Kennedy. As the article notes, that's how we got mired in Vietnam. We had our own President Egghead with Jimmy Carter. He was always the smartest man in the room, and usually the least able to decide what course of action would be best to take.

High intelligence and even higher education is not a prerequisite for leadership - it is a warning signal. More often than not, these types suffer from Absent-minded Professor Syndrome - great genius in the laboratory or the classroom, but an inability to locate their car keys and an empty place where their common sense should be.

Dangerous Geniuses

Occasionally you find a highly-intelligent, highly-educated person who is not totally incapable of completing normal tasks successfully. Someone who can shoot hoops and smoke a cigarette at the same time. Someone like Barack Obama. Their education tells them that they have all the answers. Their high intelligence tells them that they are the only person who can save America from itself.

This is dangerous. Once this conclusion is reached (and I believe it already has been) it's all over. These people might have good intentions. They might make the trains run on time for awhile. But soon no policy, no law, no relationship becomes as important as maintaining power. Mistakes will be made, laws will be broken and ignored, preachers and grandmothers will get thrown under the bus.

This doesn't just go for liberals, either. One of my favorite theoreticians ever is Newt Gingrich, and he suffered from the same problem. For a short period of time, he accomplished great things. But his belief in his own greatness caused him to make mistakes, break rules of ethics and throw people under the bus. Until the bus made a detour and ran him over. Since he's gone back to working as a theoretician, he's been doing great things again. But he should never be President.

If extreme intelligence and high educational achievement are not positive character traits in leaders, what is? Wisdom, based on timeless principles of individual liberty. Reasonable intelligence mixed with common sense and love for that which is good. A high sense of personal morality.

The article notes that my political hero, Ronald Reagan, graduated from tiny Eureka College. Certainly he was an intelligent man; you don't save multiple lives as a teenage lifeguard, become a top sports announcer, become a household name as an actor, become President of an actors union, become governor of the largest state in the nation, and then become President of the United States without intelligence. Being one of the best in the world at whatever you choose to be doing at any given time takes some smarts. But his intelligence and education were not uncommon.

As President, he would nod off during meetings when advisors talked about missile throw-weights. The minutia didn't interest him. Pointy-headed academics didn't interest him. He was interested in the big picture.

He believed that insuring personal freedom was the greatest goal of government. He knew that socialist utopianism doesn't solve problems, that government planners don't solve problems, they exacerbate them. And he knew these things because he knew all about the existence of evil.

And because he knew about evil, he knew what Soviet communism was. He learned this as President of the Screen Actors Guild, when he had to carry a gun with him to cross picket lines and when he had to battle Soviet infiltrators in the film industry. And because he knew evil, he knew that the Soviet Union would someday crumble from within. He knew that if America ever applied the right types of pressure, it would crumble sooner.

The academics laughed at the "ignorant cowboy" when he said the following in June of 1982 to the British Parliament. None of the great minds with their fancy degrees knew what Reagan knew: That the Soviet Union was doomed because it was evil, if free men and women would just shine their light upon it.

We're approaching the end of a bloody century plagued by a terrible political
invention -- totalitarianism. Optimism comes less easily today, not because
democracy is less vigorous, but because democracy's enemies have refined their
instruments of repression. Yet optimism is in order, because day by day
democracy is proving itself to be a not-at-all-fragile flower. From Stettin on
the Baltic to Varna on the Black Sea, the regimes planted by totalitarianism
have had more than 30 years to establish their legitimacy. But none -- not one
regime -- has yet been able to risk free elections. Regimes planted by bayonets
do not take root....

(t)he gift of vision, the willingness to see the
future based on the experience of the past. It is this sense of history, this
understanding of the past that I want to talk with you about today, for it is in
remembering what we share of the past that our two nations can make common cause
for the future...

History teaches the dangers of government that
overreaches -- political control taking precedence over free economic growth,
secret police, mindless bureaucracy, all combining to stifle individual
excellence and personal freedom.

President Reagan then predicts the future:

Historians looking back at our time will note the consistent restraint and
peaceful intentions of the West. They will note that it was the democracies who
refused to use the threat of their nuclear monopoly in the forties and early
fifties for territorial or imperial gain. Had that nuclear monopoly been in the
hands of the Communist world, the map of Europe -- indeed, the world -- would
look very different today... At the same time we see totalitarian forces in the
world who seek subversion and conflict around the globe to further their
barbarous assault on the human spirit. What, then, is our course? Must
civilization perish in a hail of fiery atoms? Must freedom wither in a quiet,
deadening accommodation with totalitarian evil?In an ironic sense Karl Marx was
right. We are witnessing today a great revolutionary crisis, a crisis where the
demands of the economic order are conflicting directly with those of the
political order. But the crisis is happening not in the free, non-Marxist West,
but in the home of Marxist-Leninism, the Soviet Union.

It is the Soviet
Union that runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human
dignity to its citizens. It also is in deep economic difficulty. The rate of
growth in the national product has been steadily declining since the fifties and
is less than half of what it was then. The dimensions of this failure are
astounding: A country which employs one-fifth of its population in agriculture
is unable to feed its own people...

I have discussed on other occasions,
including my address on May 9th, the elements of Western policies toward the
Soviet Union to safeguard our interests and protect the peace. What I am
describing now is a plan and a hope for the long term -- the march of freedom
and democracy which will leave Marxism-Leninism on the ash-heap of history as it
has left other tyrannies which stifle the freedom and muzzle the self-expression
of the people.

He went further in his Evil Empire speech in 1983.

So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals, I urge you to beware
the temptation of pride -- the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above
it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and
the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant
misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and
wrong and good and evil...

Whittaker Chambers, the man whose own
religious conversion made him a witness to one of the terrible traumas of our
time, the Hiss-Chambers case, wrote that the crisis of the Western World exists
to the degree in which the West is indifferent to God, the degree to which it
collaborates in communism's attempt to make man stand alone without God. And
then he said, for Marxism-Leninism is actually the second oldest faith, first
proclaimed in the Garden of Eden with the words of temptation, "Ye shall be as
gods."

The Western world can answer this challenge, he wrote, "but only
provided that its faith in God and the freedom He enjoins is as great as
communism's faith in Man."

I believe we shall rise to the challenge. I
believe that communism is another sad, bizarre chapter in human history whose
last pages even now are being written. I believe this because the source of our
strength in the quest for human freedom is not material, but spiritual. And
because it knows no limitation, it must terrify and ultimately triumph over
those who would enslave their fellow man.

We forget what leadership based on the wisdom of conservative, small government principles looks like, because we haven't seen it on a national scale since Reagan left office. We'll need to see it again following four years of Barack Obama and his fellow academic elites.

Alexandria Hires Ethicist to Decide Cuts

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 23:42:00 +0000

Alexandria policymakers are finding it hard to make the tough decisions that must be made when budget cuts are unavoidable. Property values in the area have dropped, leaving a sizeable hole in the city budget. Their solution? Pay an ethicist $9,000 a year to make the decisions for them.

Faced with painful choices about who will suffer most from looming budget cuts, Alexandria officials have taken the unusual step of paying a professional ethicist to help them grapple with the moral issues involved.

Michael A. Gillette is an ethicist who works for area hospitals helping them make decisions about patient care, but he has taken a part time job making decisions for the leaders of Alexandria as to who should and who should not bear the brunt of budget cuts. He has proposed things like turning apartments initially being built for the mentally ill into temporary homes for the disabled.

"If the limb comes off, at least you saved the life. That's what true scarcity feels like," said Gillette, a Lynchburg, Va., City Council member who often uses the battlefield clarity of old "M*A*S*H" episodes to goad his listeners.

First of all, shame on the "leaders" of Alexandria. They were appointed/elected specifically to make the kinds of decisions that they are now pawning off on Gillette. Politicians today are not capable of making really tough decisions because they feel they will not get re-elected if they take services away from their constituency. So they hire an ethicist to make the decision. Now the onus is on the ethicist, and the politicians continue collecting a check for the work that they farm out. Ethical? I think we should ask Mr. Gillette.

In Alexandria, social service officials first began seeking Gillette's advice on clinical quandaries, which represent the bulk of his work. But over time, especially since the weakening real estate market stung the city last year, money questions have gained urgency. They now pay him a $9,000 annual consulting fee.

Second, shame on Mr. Gillette. What kind of ethicist takes money from an already failing economy to do a job that someone else was already paid to do? Even kids in elementary school know that it is unethical to give someone else the answers to the test.

Obama Already Answered Open Questions

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:12:00 +0000

Change.gov recently closed a segment entitled "Open Questions" where the public was asked to pose questions which could then be voted on and ranked by other users. Out of the top 50 questions, 12 questions including question #1 had to do with legalizing marijuana. Research into a high speed railroad instead of a massive highway bill had the second highest number of questions. Others in the top 50 have already been answered by His O-liness:

"What will you do as President to restore the Constitutional protections that have been subverted by the Bush Administration and how will you ensure that our system of checks and balances is renewed?" - Kari

"The constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It only spells out what the government cannot do to you. It does not spell out what government must do for you." Having said that, next question:

"Will you appoint a Special Prosecutor - ideally Patrick Fitzgerald - to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush Administration, including torture and warrantless wiretaps?" - Bob Fertik

"What I would want to do is to have my Justice Department and my Attorney General immediately review the information that's already there and to find out are there inquiries that need to be pursued. I can't prejudge that because we don't have access to all the material right now. I think that you are right, if crimes have been committed, they should be investigated. You're also right that I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt because I think we've got too many problems we've got to solve."
Obama may have his own witchhunt to deal with after all. But then again, Fitzgerald may want to keep his job. Strangely enough, there were no questions about Blagojevich.

"What will you do to promote science and mathematics education to Elementary and Middle School students?" - JasonWyatt

"You know, sometimes I'll go to an eighth-grade graduation and there's all that pomp and circumstance and gowns and flowers. And I think to myself, it's just eighth grade. To really compete, they need to graduate high school, and then they need to graduate college, and they probably need a graduate degree too. An eighth-grade education doesn't cut it today. Let's give them a handshake and tell them to get their butts back in the library!"

""What will you do to end the use of mercenary forces (ie Blackwater) by our military?" - Betsie

Obama's new chief of staff, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (IL), wants to institute three months of "Universal Civil Defense Training" for college-aged Americans. He argued that this mandatory service was necessary, "because we have a lot more challenges." In other words, we won't need companies like blackwater because they will be replaced with the SS Civil Defense Force.

""What will be done to make the banking industry accountable when there are so many substantiated stories about their mismangement in relationship to selling bank owned properties and managing potential foreclosures?" - Robyn

"We've got to have transparency, openness, fair dealing in our financial markets and that's an area where I think over the last eight years we've fallen short. We've got to provide a blood infusion to the patient right now to make sure the patient is stabilized. We can't worry short term about the deficit ... We've got to make sure the economic stimulus plan is large enough to get the economy moving." So to hell with sound financial planning. Let's just throw money at the problem until it goes away.

We all saw what we were dealing with when Rasmussen did it's poll of Obama voters last month, so I guess it comes as no surprise that people posting questions at Change.gov didn't know that President-elect Government had already answered them.

Top Ten Republican Candidates for 2012

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 15:28:00 +0000

10) David Petraeus

Although ordinarily a good candidate, I can't see anyone directly linked to Bush being elected, barring a dismal Obama failure or a massive terrorist attack here at home.

9) Mark Sanford

Sanford has gained a popularity bump from conservatives by turning down any kind of state bailout for South Carolina. He has good experience in fixing a budget, as well, and we all know that the next president will need that.

In 2003, South Carolina was in an almost $1 billion financial hole in addition to a $155 million unconstitutional deficit. After years of engaging in a tug-of-war with the Legislature over the issue of spending, we’re starting to see signs of progress - the 2007 budget process started in the black for the first time in 16 years.

8) Micheal Steele

Has called for the repeal of federal gasoline and diesel taxes as an immediate, short term solution for our energy crisis. He also supports tax breaks on green automobiles and repealing the death tax.

7) Tim Pawlenty

Balanced the Minnesota budget not by raising taxes, and not by cutting spending, but rather by slowing the rate of funding growth for state services.

6) Mike Pence

Pence describes himself as "a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order." He supported no amnesty immigration reform, a ban on embryonic stem cell research (he cites the viability of adult stem cells.

5) George Allen

A former governor of Virginia, and a former US senator, George Allen definitely has the credentials required. His loose lips are a detriment, a la the "Mucaca" quip.

4) Bobby Jindal

The governor of Louisiana is actually my favorite in the list, but he recently batted down any talk of him running for president when he announced his bid for re-election in 2011 in Richmond, VA. Jindal is currently experiencing the same kind of buzz created in 2004 by a certain senator from Illinois.

3) Newt Gingrich

Any credit for Bill Clinton's bi-partisanship taken by the Democrats needs to coupled with Gingrich and the "Contract for America". Gingrich is a conservative's conservative. He also posesses national recognition that no other person above him on this list can claim.

2) Mike Huckabee

Huckabee was the favorite amongst conservatives during the primaries. He is curently hosting his own show on Fox News. The only thing holding back Huckabee is his poor comedic timing.

1) Sarah Palin

Round 1 may be over, but Palin thrust herself into the national political spotlight with her no nonsense approach and her appeal to regular folks. Like her or not, there is no denying that she is the superstar of the party right now.

The War on Christmas

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 21:17:00 +0000

In Mason, Ohio, a couple of moonbats have taken the war on Christmas to a whole new level.

It's no wonder they want to take Jesus out of nativity scenes, because look who they want to put in:

Now tell me they don't think he's "The Messiah".

Edit: Right Wing News also has a war on christmas story here.

Bobby Jindal Endorses Bob McDonnell

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:49:00 +0000

Governor Bobby Jindal endorsed Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell on Wednesday at the Jefferson Hotel in Richmond. He also announced that he will be seeking re-election as governor in 2011 and will not run for president.

Gov. Jindal also spoke very highly of the man he was there to support Attorney General Bob McDonnell. They both talked about McDonnell’s recent trip to Louisiana and Jindal specifically spoke about McDonnell’s commitment to public safety and fiscal responsibility.

Video of the re-election bid can be found here.

And Speaking of Joe the Plumber

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 02:01:00 +0000

The taxpayers of Ohio could pay a hefty sum for snooping into the background of Joe Wurzelbacher. When Ohio Department of Job and Family Services Director Helen Jones-Kelley used public computers to access the background of Joe Wurzelbacher when Wurzelbacher challenged now President-elect Obama about higher tax rates at an afternoon stop in Joe's Toledo neighborhood.

The legislation before Ohio lawmakers is requiring each check of an individual's private records to be logged. Opponents of the bill say that millions of records are legitimately accessed every day and that it would cost about $100 million to create that system.

Ms. Jones-Kelly brought this on her state. Indirectly the Democrat party brought this on Ohio. Perhaps they should pay the price instead of Ohio taxpayers. And just who is opposing this transparency? That's right: the party of President Government.

Unlike Sandwich Board Man, This Guy Gets It

slackathor@gmail.com (Rob Barton) — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:05:00 +0000

Paul Nawrocki, aka the Sandwich Board man, aka Anti-Joe the Plumber seems to think that walking around the streets of Manhattan with a sign that says "Almost Homeless" will net him an executive position. How's that working out for you, Paul? How about taking an example from James Williamson.

All he wants is a job, but James Williamson and his fresh MBA diploma aren't having any luck. So the 25-year-old is taking advantage of a captive audience - the one in the back of his yellow cab.

He's posted his résumé on the divider behind the front seats, in the hope that one of his customers might be the employer of his dreams.

Mr. Williamson gets it. He has the tools necessary to succeed in this world. He realizes that the American Dream is not something that is handed to you, but something that you strive every day to achieve. He is taking opportunity instead of hoping that someone will take pity on him as they stumble across him on a busy Manhattan street. He realizes that he may not have the job he wants right now,

"I was hoping the economy would be better by the time I got out," he said. "I was hoping for an entry-level job. I was just trying to get my foot in the door. I was confident with my degree, and then after the first month I started saying, 'Oh, maybe I'll take customer-service jobs.' "

but he has the tools he needs to get ahead. He is not waiting around while looking for his opportunity, either. He realizes that some kind of job will at least help pay the bills, so he drives his taxi around NYC making contacts all day long. He hasn't had a real hit yet, although one patron has offered him some advice on his resume.

Good Luck, Mr. Williamson, I am rooting and praying for you.