If the Presidential Election Were Re-held

If you had to vote for President all over again, given the choices and even what we know now from 2004, would you vote for Bush or that French guy?

This is how the election came out:

These were our choices:

Images from Respublica and Zete-Tic

Think we have problems now? Maybe we would be going along with U.N. resolution number 426 condemning Hussein, and the U.N. still taking bribes if this country had gone the other way. Think of the Supreme Court justices that we would have gotten rather than what we have. Think of the taxes that would have been added and the negative impact of those on the economy.

I have a lot of problems with President Bush, but nothing compared to what might have been. When people want to bash Bush, remember the other choice that we had--no choice.

(Note: This post is not from G.M., who may have a varying viewpoint.)

'Nuff Said

This Picture is worth at least 1000 words, if not 100 times that. Sad isn't it?

H/T Hugh Hewitt

'Nuff Said

This Picture is worth at least 1000 words, if not 100 times that. Sad isn't it?

H/T Hugh Hewitt

GOP Straw Poll

Lott Leaves A Lot To Be Desired!

GOP Senator: Patience on Iraq Is Limited

May 7, 9:08 PM (ET)

By ANNE FLAHERTY

WASHINGTON (AP) - Senate Republican Whip Trent Lott said Monday that President Bush's new strategy in Iraq has until about fall before GOP members will need to see results."

That's funny, I lost patience with Lott a long time ago. Talk about a slick windbag... he almost makes Clinton look good!

Ronald Reagan Liberty Statue

We have our Statue of Liberty and people in Poland want something similar--one of President Reagan.

Polish Consider Ronald Reagan as "Symbol of Liberty"

Opponents of Poland's former communist regime reportedly want to pay a posthumous homage to US President Ronald Reagan by erecting his statue in the place of a Soviet-era monument. ...There are already separate plans to erect a statue in memory of Reagan in the centre of the Polish capital, Warsaw, which would be paid-for from private funds. Reagan, who dubbed the Soviet Union an "evil empire," is widely credited by Poles with having driven communism to the wall.

I know that liberals in this country deny that President Reagan was primarily responsible for the fall of the Soviet communist block (they say that he just continued Pres. Carter's plan), but some people who lived under Soviet domination think differently and wish to honor Pres. Reagan and celebrate liberty. And, in reality, Ronald Reagan saved the American people from Jimmy Carter, too.

A Portent Of Things To Come? - UPDATED

This post is filed under Liberals And Democrats because it is about Liberals and Democrats. So, what else would I blog in a blogsite devoted to the POV of a right wing, knuckle dragging, neandertholic, conservative? But, I digress.

Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) is the presumptive Speaker of the United States House of Representatives when the next congress convenes in January, 2007. The newly elected Majority Leader is Jack Murtha Steny Hoyer. Hoyer IS is NOT a friend of Pelosi, and in fact, lost to Pelosi in the race for minority leader two years ago. This setback for Pelosi brings to mind a question as to her competence to be the Speaker (not that Denny Hastert was any shining example). Too, Pelosi has proposed a number of folk for leadership positions that absolutely call into question her fitness for the job. She has proposed, as a sop to the Congressional Black Caucus the elevation of Alcee Hastings to the chair of the House Intelligence Committee over Jane Harmon. The CBC wants Hastings because of the (gasp) ethics problems of William Jefferson (D-La). This is compounded by the fact that Pelosi doesn't like her fellow Californian Jane Harmon. Ruth Marcus, commenting in the afore linked Washington Post article a week prior to the election notes:

Pelosi is in a box of her own devising. The panel's ranking Democrat is her fellow Californian Jane Harman -- smart and hardworking but also abrasive, ambitious and, in Pelosi's estimation, insufficiently partisan on the committee. So Pelosi, once the intelligence panel's ranking Democrat herself, has made clear that she doesn't intend to name Harman to the chairmanship." [emphasis added]

Insufficiently partisan? For the Intelligence Committee? Isn't that what Pelosi and her fellow Democrats have railed against? What happened to the Democrats cry's for bipartisanship when they lost an election?

In fact, there is some evidence that a Pelosi "speakership" will be frought with multiple problems in getting her liberal agenda through. There are the so called "Blue-Dog" Democrats, 44 by last count, who represent a little less than 1/5^th(19.3832599% to be a little more precise) of the incoming "ruling" Democrats. What are "Blue-Dog" Democrats you ask? Simple, they are moderate to conservative Democrats who ran and were elected as Democrats in spite of (because of?) not running as Liberals. The website Capital Questions states that Blue-Dog Democrats are

The Blue Dogs, [,,,] are less fiercely partisan, and they do not all hail from the South. They seek to build ideological bridges to the Republican side of the aisle, are known for their independence from the leadership of their own party, and tend to be more pragmatic than partisan.

This alone presents an interesting connundrum for Pelosi and the other liberals in the Democratic House Heirarchy. Will her hyperpartisanship (despite her photo-ops with George W. Bush and pronouncements to the contrary) cause her to run up against the Blue-Dogs as often as she will the Republicans? Note also, that many of the "defeated" Republicans were what many conservatives called RINOs (Republican In Name Only).

As I have stated in a previous post, the coming battles may well prove to be a target rich inverionment for this and other bloggers. In fact, my blog-father, a big time "progressive" (he dosen't like the term liberal applied to himself) Marc Cooper, alluding to the missteps by Pelosi regarding her selections and appoitments saying:

In the end, it's a stupid, pointless fight and regardless of its outcome a dumb first move by Pelosi that focuses the debate on flawed ethics rather than on bold leadership.

Cooper also noted that his friend (and fellow liberal progressive Doug Ireland had this to say about Pelosi: "...she just ain't all that smart"

Just who is Nancy Pelosi, the lawmaker from San Francisco with an exagerrated reputation for liberalism? She's an opportunist and a trimmer, who -- just two days after the Democrats re-took both houses of Congress and her Speakership was assured -- proclaimed, "We must govern from the center." When she was first elected to lead the House Democrats six years ago, I investigated Pelosi's background for the L.A. WEEKLY. And one of the things I found out in my digging was that she just ain't all that smart.

Pelosi is catching it from the right as well. Lorie Byrd said (in an article titled "From Moderate To Moonbat In Less Than A Week":

Nancy Pelosi said, “the American people voted to restore integrity and honesty in Washington, D.C., and the Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open and most ethical Congress in history.”

In spite of those words, she backed John Murtha over Steny Hoyer for the position of majority leader, even as conservative talk radio hosts played over and over again a decades old tape of Murtha’s involvement in the Abscam scandal.

Byrd was not the only one on the right (as can well be imagined) who picked up on the faux moderate => to moonbat transformation, Neo-Neo Con notes:

We expected her stand to offend Republicans; that's not news. But it offended Democrats as well, not to mention Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, previously labeled "...probably the most anti-Bush reporter currently assigned to the White House by a major news organization" by John J. Miller of National Review.

And there you have it beloved readers, Nancy Pelosi (DIMocrat - California), incoming Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is an airhead and catching it (and well deservedly so I'm sure) from both the right (which is expected) and the left (which is icing on the cake). I'm sure that this is a portent of things to come and I just can't wait!

Cross Posted At The Real Ugly American.

Didn't They Learn ANYTHING???

Republicans have returned Trent Lott to a leadership position in the next congress. Lott, who was ousted for "racially insensitive" remarks four years ago but who is more famous for his die-hard support of pork-barrel spending, and who I railed against last April is baaaaaaackkkkkkkk!

Have the Republicans learned absolutely NOTHING since November 7th? Good God folks, talk about handing the Democrats more ammunition.

Prediction

I'm fairly ticked off at the Republicans, with Stevens, McCain, Graham especially and a number of others for a variety of reasons. But, I don't want to see the Democrats in power either. If the voters of our republic elect the Democrats, it will be like cutting off your nose to spite your face and will be almost instantly regretted. But, we have a couple of Edicts from the Blogging Ceasar to contend with and that says it all.

On Iraq, Democrats Less Trusted than Bush

The Democrats have made Iraq a central theme for the upcoming mid-term elections. Look at the contrast between what the Democrats say and do and what the American people think, according to this article: A message for Democrats

Here's what House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says:

Part of the (Democratic) message...has to include Iraq. The Bush administration, Pelosi said, was "wrong on the premise going in, wrong on the reception we would receive, wrong on the reconstruction and how soon Iraq could pay for it, and wrong on an exit strategy of mission accomplished. Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong, and they say 'stay the course.'"

Here's what the American people say:

While 59 percent of Americans told an Associated Press poll this month that they disapproved of President Bush's handling of Iraq, 64 percent disapproved of the Democrats' handling of it. While 62 percent of Americans told a Washington Post/ABC News poll last month that they disapproved of Bush's handling of the war, an even higher percentage of respondents, 71 percent, said the Democrats do not offer clear alternatives.

It seems to me that if a political party is going to focus on an issue, its leaders should first determine if they have any better alternatives and if they have the approval of the voters. But, we're talking logic and Democrats here--two words that do not go together.

But, there is a lesson here for the Republicans, too. If the Bush administration is sure of its course in Iraq, then it needs to do a better job explaining it. If the administration is not sure that we are on the correct course, then the American people are right and adjustments need to be made--just not to the Democrats who are less trusted.

What Does A Living Wage Look Like?

UNDER THE SPREADING CHESTNUT TREE THE VILLAGE SMITHY SNOOZES,
NO HORSE SINCE 1933 HAS COME TO HIM FOR SHOESES.
The Democratic Party and the left (not always the same thing) have been agitating for a substantial raise, to a "living wage" the federal minimum wage law. Currently, and for many years, the federal minimum wage has been $5.15 an hour and the generic left (in which this time I'm including the Democrats) would like to see that raised. I've seen suggestions ranging from $6.00 an hour up to $12.00 an hour. When anyone suggests that price increases passed on by businesses and or job loss from small firms may result, the outcry typically is that Republicans and Conservatives (again, not necessarily the same thing) hate the poor and don't want the rich to have to pay anything out of their pockets. And, depending on the blog you go to, the language to describe generic conservatives (this time I'm including Republicans) is a whole lot worse.

Well, the fact of the matter is that there will be a tradeoff. Companies, large and small will either have to raise prices and/or lay folk off in order to keep profit margins within the realm of feasibility. What's that you say? No they won't? How silly, of course they will. No politician is going to pass a law limiting profit (unless it's big oil and a windfall profits tax - and you see how well the last one worked) because they know that the funds for re-election come essentially from the pockets of investors and owners of small and large businesses. So, ask for the moon, you have as much a chance of getting that.

But, I digress, back to the issue of the minimum wage. Many states and localities have already passed minimum wages for residents in their respective political subdivisisons, so why aren't the generic leftists prodding them for increases and the rest of the country to catch up? Simple really, again politics. To effectively "buy" votes for the Democratic Party, there needs to be a national stage for Democratic politicians to run from.

It just won't do to have a bunch of Democrats touting a higher minimum wage as a local issue (although they are doing so for state wide initiatives). Ahhhh, but "The Democratic Party forced the administration to raise the minimum wage can be a national cry and be much more effective. But, that is still not the whole answer.

The rest of the answer lies in the amount of the raise. If $9.00 an hour is "OK" but not where it should be, why stop at $9.00, or $10.00 or even $15.00? Let us go all the way to $30.00 an hour for all entry level jobs, regardless of skills, education, or experience. Those don't matter anyway, because a minimum wage is just that... the minimum that you can pay someone for work received. But, you know, I've never had a generic lefty say "OK, you bet, let's do it." They all say something along the lines of "Don't be ridiculous." But, I'm not being ridiculous! If that, or some other figure exceeding a figure of say $18.00 an hour is what it takes to reach the "livable wage" criteria, why heck, lets do it.

If we did however, while the Democrats could claim victory for that election's pandering, it wouldn't hold up over the long term. No, not even close, in fact the resulting economic displacement and chaos would be horrendous. You see, the Democratic party really doesn't give a damn my dear, about the "little guy" they only want policies that insure his vote. Look at all the "grand coalition" of special interest groups called the Democratic Party and where they are today. The Democrats ruled congress and the senate from 1954 through 1994, with a single exception of the U.S. Senate on the coattails of Ronald Reagan's landslide, and that only lasted a couple of years. Are those groups substantially any better off now than they were then? Blacks? The Poor? The Hungry? The Homeless? Labor? Or, as it seems to me the Dems are running on the same issues that they have always run on? Except of course when a Democrat is in the White House. Whole different ballgame then friends.

So, why not raise the minimum wage all the way at one time? Because they want to use that issue again, and again, and again. $7.00 an hour now, in a couple of years, another $0.75 then another a dozen years after that. Each time decrying the lack of a livable wage. Yeppers dearly beloved readers, a platform they can run on forever, and never be held accountable for. No wonder the horses haven't been to the smithy since '33, same old tired platform, same old tired policy.

Thoughtful comments from generic lefties requested. No vitriol please or I'll take your comment down.

More on the Minimum Wage and other egregious fibs from my good friend Donald Luskin on my blogroll, who writes "The Conspiracy To Keep You Poor And Stupid." By the Bye, if Luskin isn't on your favorites list, he ought to be.

Dear Republicans: YOU NEED MY VOTE!

Dear Republican National Committee and any Republican running for elective office:

Sirs, you need my vote! My name is Joe American and I've been very worried about and losing sleep over the current state of governance you have displayed. You need to know that I proudly voted for Ronald Reagan 1980 and in '84, I voted for Bush the elder in '88 but he lost my vote in '92 because after saying his "Read my lips..." promise, he broke it. Yeah! That had some very real consequences in '92 didn't it? I voted Republican again in '96, '00 and '04 and in all the in-between elections. But I may very well not vote for you in '06 and you will have no one else to blame except yourselves.

In '94 Newt Gingrich ran for a congress strongly behind the "Contract for America" and it was roundly derided by the Democrats who had controlled the congress for so damn long. Everyone expected the Democrats to gain power one more time. But guess what fellows? America voted the bastards out, and they did so for a number of very cogent reasons.

Oh, I know, the MSM would like to have had you believe at the time that it was the vote of the "Angry White Male" but that was so much B.S. It was folks like me and Maria down the Block and Hans over at the German Deli and Mabel at the bar. It was Juan at the vegetable packing shed and young William flipping burgers between classes at the University. It was Dr Yang over at the hospital and Dr. Grayson my personal doc. It was Betty at the bowling alley and Jennifer who teaches at the local elementary school. It was James at the fish market and Oskar at the dry cleaners. It was America! And America is now upset with you.

When we put you in office, you had high ideals. You seemed to be committed to the idea of fiscal restraint. Instead, you have spent like a tax-and-spender (usually called Democrats) except in your case; it's been a cut tax but spend anyway. Our President Bush has not had the guts or the wisdom to veto some of those profligate spending bills, even when it was obvious he should have done so. Trent Lott the former Majority Leader of the Senate recently stated that he was tired of hearing from the "so called porkbusters." He is also on record as having said "“The way I do it is, I fold them into bills where you can’t find it,� Lott said. “I’ve been around here long enough to know how to bury it.� Is that what you think we elected you for?

Then there are the scandals. Oh, I know that Democrats (and it was apparently about pork money too) and Republicans are prone to scandals, but golly folks, you seem to be reveling in the ability to upset the status quo.

Money and Scandal - John Shadegg said it pretty well:

Republicans promised the American people two things in 1994. First, we promised to rein in the size and scope of the federal government. Second, we promised to clean up Washington. In recent years, we have fallen short on both counts. Total federal spending has grown by 33% since 1995, in inflation-adjusted dollars. Worse, we have permitted some of the same backroom practices that flourished in the old Democrat-controlled House. Powerful members of Congress are able to insert provisions giving away millions--even tens of millions--of dollars in the dead of night. The recent scandals involving Duke Cunningham and Jack Abramoff have highlighted the problem, but this is not just a case of a few bad apples. The system itself needs structural reforms.

Most of all, I resent you spending my money and the money of my children, my future grandchildren and maybe my great grandchildren as well. You did one good thing by passing a significant tax cut. Because of that, the economy is doing well, but if you don't tie spending restraint into this picture, you won't like it when the picture changes.

You have failed miserably at reforming the way government works. And, I'm not sure you even think we have noticed. You are going blithely about your business as though we were too stupid not to notice. Well, you are wrong. Further, you are wrong on so many counts. We expect good government and we are not getting it with you in charge. If we wanted all this scandal, spending like there is no tomorrow etc., we would have kept the Democrats in place in '94. But, we wanted change. You started off right but quickly lost your way.

So, I'm putting you on notice. You will have to EARN my vote this year, and you have damn little time to do it. You need to clean up your act and you need to start now. Not next week, not next month, not next year. Now!

Remember, I don't need you, I can get some Democrats to do the same thing you are doing (and probably increase my taxes too.) But you need me in a most desperate way. You need my vote!

INSTALANCHE: Thanks Dr. Glenn. Welcome Instapundit Readers. Hope you enjoyed this and come on back any time. Dr. Glenn's readers are always welcome.

Open Letter To Trent Lott

The Honorable Trent Lott
487 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator Lott:

First, please know that I am an American first and a conservative second and a Republican third. If I were a citizen of your state, please believe that I would not vote for you in the next election. Fortunately, I live in Texas.

Recently, according to the newspapers you stated, and I quote: I'll just say this about the so-called porkbusters. I'm getting damn tired of hearing from them. They have been nothing but trouble..." If you did say that sir, you are an idiot. NEVER should a United States Senator disdain from hearing from citizens of this United States. Never should a Senator be so piqued that he insults citizens expressing an interest in how this country is run, let alone how this country is funded. You don't have to agree, but by gosh you don't have to denegrate the concerns of its citizens. Many of the "porkbusters" are Republicans and reside in your own state.

The major issue is spending $700 million (that is with a M to move a rail line from where it survived a major hurricane to a more inland area. Why Senator? Have you never heard the old adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it?"

Tim Chapman even caught the Senate Appropriations folk LYING about the project noting that the claim was that the CSX rail line was only operating "on a temporary basis." Senator, that rail line has been back at normal service levels since January 31, 2006. Care to explain that to the Porkbusters?

Apparantly not. Do you think that the Porkbusters (of which I am a proud member) are encroaching on your political turf? Do you think that we can't see what you are doing in terms of garnering monies for your state at the expense of others?

Oh, we know that this is how the game is played, we understand that you vote for other Senator's pork projects so that they will vote for yours. We understand that you really don't give a damn about the fiscal integrity of the United States as long as you get to say you brought money into Mississippi. Surely we do!

And Senator, we also understand that your days as a spender are numbered. If the good people of Mississippi had wanted a tax and spend politician they would have elected a tax and spend politician rather than you, a politician that preaches conservative values of fiscal restraint. One that preaches the value of being responsible. In your March 7, 2006 press release you noted:

In the fall Congress approved $2.75 billion to fund highway transportation aid packages for Gulf Coast states. As a result, DOT provided $25 million last year and $740 million for the state's road repair work in January, the Senators said.

Tuesday's award of $248 million is in addition to the earlier figures, bringing the total federal funding for emergency road repairs in Mississippi to more than $1 billion, Cochran and Lott said. The total also funds the cost of removing debris from highways immediately after the storm.

Now, spending money to get the highways damaged by Katrina seems justified as say opposed to the same amount on an unbuilt "bridge to nowhere." But $700,000,000.00 to move a railroad that is perfectly functioning?

At one time I thought you were a fairly stalwart fellow. No more, Senator, no more. Now, I see, you are just another pork hustler in the halls of congress. No different than any Democrat or any other tax and spend. Wait, I'm mistaken, you are a tax cut and spend anyway congress-critter.

You may be running on the Republican ticket Senator, but you are no Republican. Shame on you!

GM Roper

UPDATE: From a source in DC, Trent Lott said this Last year as reported in Roll Call [subscription required]: "The way I do it is, I fold them into bills where you can't find it," Lott said. "Ive been around here long enough to know how to bury it."

Hmmm, Mr. Lott, can you hang your head in shame and then apologize to the taxpayers?

My Kind of Pachyderm

It is not often that I, as a proud Texan, have any cause to be jealous of those north of the Red River. I am now jealous though of those residing in the 68,667 sq. mi. known as Oklahoma. What could possibly give rise to such an ugly emotion? Well it certainly isn't their schools or their football teams, it is their junior Senator, Tom Coburn (R-OK).

He is my kind of pachyderm. A fiscal conservative not afraid to make it known that what is currently going on up on the Hill is just plain wrong, Coburn has recently teamed up with the perennial thorn in the Republicans foot, John McCain. Now, I don't especially care for McCain, but he is good at making noise and getting whatever agenda he is pushing out in the public eye, so it is good to see Coburn taking advantage of the McCain loudspeaker to bring attention to the issue of earmarks, or as it is more properly termed, pork.

Apparently so many of his fellow members have questioned if he was serious about ending this grotesque practice, he saw fit to answer them via this letter in the Wall Street Journal. Included in the letter was this:

Nowhere in our founding documents is a justification for today's out-of-control earmarking. In fact, Madison and the other framers were clear that the general welfare clause of the Constitution should never be construed as a blank check for Congress. Pork is a modern indulgence, not an ancient or noble tradition.

Personally, I would think that such an obvious point would not need to be explained to his fellow Republicans, but apparently it was. Of course, he wasn't totally on base in the letter. His assessment of pork is off base:

Pork is the root cause of the unholy relationship between some members of Congress, lobbyists and donors.

Pork is not a cause, it is a symptom of the overreaching hand of modern government in our country. It is only natural that when the government sees fit to relentlessly increase its reach into the private realm, that those affected by the government actions will see the need to do everything within their abilities to ensure that government action benefits, rather than harms them.

Naturally, once politicians get a taste for the perks the wielding of their power brings, they become more and more willing to use that power to get more perks. But the perks aren't just those slipped to them by various lobbyists, they also figured out very quickly that they could get perks from their constituents (in the form of votes) for "bringing home the bacon." Once that cat was out of the bag, there was virtually no stopping it.

The only hope that Coburn has is to shine as much light on this as possible. Shame is his weapon, hopefully he will wield it well. If so, he will become my second favorite Republican, behind Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX).

Authored by Liberty Dog

Update: In one of the comments, I was reminded that I am still new here and most of you still don't know my politics. Having forgot that, I failed to point out that this post was meant as an endorsement of only Sen. Coburn's fiscal policies, not his social ones, which as a libertarian, I do not subscibe to.

Psychic Preview of President Bush's State of the Union Address

President Bush is set to deliver the State of the Union address to Congress and to the American people. C-Span provides a historical review of these Presidential messages, with transcripts back to Truman and a video all the way back to Nixon. However, we will go one step further and provide President Bush's State of the Union address by looking into the future. Please watch the preview by clicking on the picture caption.

Psychic Preview of President Bush's 2006 State of the Union Address

In another incredible display of psychic powers, I am predicting that the Democrats will criticize everything that President Bush says.

An Invitation to A Celebration

I'd Like to take credit for the above, but the Idea came from Mike at Mike's America. And damn if it isn't a GREAT idea. In fact, I'll echo Mike, if you are a blogger, steal the invite, put your own name on it and spread it around, put it on your blog. Whoop it up because even if the Gipper has gone on, he left us his legacy and I'm damn glad he was President.

I thought I'd show you a photograph of one of my most prized possessions. It is framed, with photographs and an actual invite to the first Inaugeration. A treasure for sure!