Mar 07 2010
White House Liberals Fail To See The Big Problem – Them!
I have lived outside DC almost all of my soon to be 50 years, and I have seen each new administration come into town with dreams and expectations and then hit reality. Many make the transition, some just crash and burn.
You can make change from DC, but you have to know the culture and the pitfalls. George W Bush was incredibly adept at getting what he wanted. It wasn’t until his party screwed up and lost Congress (they do the spending, not the president and not one fighting two wars), that Bush started to lose his magic. But if you look at his list of accomplishments and their scope, it is impressive.
Team Obama has taken their turn at this right of passage, and continue to fail to get the message. Their list contains a huge number of failures, not successes. Once you get into DC you need to learn that there is no instant power, and you need to adapt quickly. Your amazement with your fantastic ideas will not last long in the gristmill. Humility is a good starting point. Team Obama clearly demonstrates why in their crash from such high hopes.
What team Obama has yet to learn is you need to do two things to control DC:
- Play the power brokers right – which Obama has had some success in to a point, except he let the power brokers play him a bit too much.
- Keep public opinion on your side.
In this time of economic downturn there was one other rule which applied, and that was don’t experiment with untried ideas – and definitely don’t fail with them! On the economy the liberals in DC experimented – and failed. They failed because the relied on government spending, which is a slow, lethargic process. So slow that is why 85+% of the job creating money in the bill is still stuck inside the bowels of the federal government, not stimulating a single job.
The DC liberals should have known this. But they went with their warped liberal fantasy that slow government spending is better than quick and broad tax cuts.
The fact is most top people inside the failing White House still don’t get it!
“Typical Washington junk we have to deal with,†Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. The president is deft at blocking out such noise, he added, suddenly brightening. “I love the guy,†he said, and in the space of five minutes, repeated the sentiment twice.
Critics, pointing to the administration’s stalled legislative agenda, falling poll numbers and muddled messaging, suggest that kind of devotion is part of the problem at the White House.
…
Mr. Axelrod said he accepts some blame for what he called “communication failures,†though he acknowledges bafflement that the administration’s efforts to stimulate the economy in a crisis, overhaul health care and prosecute two wars have been so routinely framed by opponents as the handiwork of a big-government, soft-on-terrorism, politics-of-the-past ideologue.
“For me, the question is, why haven’t we broken through more than we have?†Mr. Axelrod said. “Why haven’t we broken through?â€
A better question is why haven’t you woken up and figured out your errors team Obama? Let’s see the evidence for “big government”
- We have the takeover of GM – now “Government Motors”
- We have the forced sale of Chrysler to a foreign automaker
- We have the cash-for-clunkers disaster
- We have a “pay czar” telling banks and investment companies how much they are allowed to pay
- We have socialists running amok planning various ways to take from the successful and distribute their wealth
- We have a bunch of from the Religion of The Green God who want to tax fossil fuels into oblivion, sending this WORLD into economic disaster
- We have liberals who won’t face facts that Americans do not want the government to take over and ration health care (i.e., bend the cost curve down).
We have seen big government work and fail, recently and over our lifetimes. We have also seen the free market engine of this country explore the farthest reaches of space, discover so many medical cures our biggest economic threat is living healthier and longer, and connect the world through the internet like no other civilization on Earth. Not to mention we saw it lift us out of the dark horrors of 9-11.
We know which avenue works best, and it is not letting another group of know-it-alls play God in DC with our lives.
Let’s jump to the ‘politics-of-the-past’ argument. What we are seeing is the liberals playing hyper-partisan politics, shutting out and denigrating their opponents – just like the scientists caught perverting the scientific method and peer-review process in Climategate. What we see is gross vote buying and corruption to the point there seems to be special set of laws for the DC power brokers.
We see DC ignoring the voters. Our democracy is being destroyed by fragile, stubborn egos who cannot realize they too must succumb to the will of the people, or be thrown out on their backsides. We have not only lost faith in the government, it has now become a threat to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Trust me Axelrod, it is getting through on this side. Why is the voice of the people not breaking through your delusional, egotistical heads?
And finally, the soft on terrorism claim. From an administration who banned the term ‘war on terror’ this is rich. For an administration that ignored red flags handed to them by the previous administration on Major Hasan, who pushed to prematurely shutdown investigating this traitor turned “soldier of Allah” that is pretty thick denial. He killed and injured almost 50 people.
For an administration which reset our trip wires to react more cautiously to terrorist leads, to respect freedom of speech beyond sane limits (which means you can say any damn thing you want and these fools would give you a mulligan) this confusion is downright scary.
We lowered our response levels to NSA leads and 300 people nearly exploded over the skies of Detroit. We failed to interrogate the would-be bomber and now some unknown number of radicalized and trained American traitors are trying to enter this country and perform mass murder.
We know these things happened due to changes made by Team Obama. They rejected tax cuts and embraced the liberal fantasy of government spending. They rejected letting the markets work out the recession and instead took control of large segments of our economy. Â They rejected our message on health care and continue to plow ahead with a government attack on our private insurance. They changed our posture to terrorist attacks right when al Qaeda adjusted to the liberal mind washing on monitoring and interrogation.
We get it Mr. Axelrod – when will you wake up from liberal fantasy land?
I still think this isn’t about HCR or immigration alone.
It’s about HCR and immigration reform, which together can give the Democrats a new majority.
The old majority, which included seniors, is in danger because even they realize that eventually the seniors are going to get dumped on, either by the Republicans or the Democrats .. it will happen and the other party won’t be able to bring them back .. a lose-lose. So the new strategy is to dump the seniors now and add in millions of new immigrants to the Democratic election rolls with health care as the lure, much the same way FDR won over the Blacks from the Republicans.
This eventually will make the Republicans more than the “Party of ‘No”” but the “Party of take-away”.
I am going to wade into dangerous waters here, because AJ’s statistical skills are vastly superior to mine, but I will take the gamble.
A running pet peeve of mine is the use of the phrase “the American believe . . .” or “the American people want . . .” The pie chart representing the various goals and desires of individual members of the American public properly represented is highly fractured. Any chart that says otherwise is an attempt to highlight some trends. The abuse of this phraseology in debate reminds me of AJ’s posts regarding AGW graphing where ground data was used to mask satellite data. This choice of words has a similar rhetorical effect.
While this discussion has not committed that fault, the phrase “the debate is about . . .” or “it is about . . .” commits many of the same faults.
AJ and I have different perspectives on the issue of immigration, as noted elsewhere. His position does not represent mine, mine does not represent his. Is there a way for the two of us to be summarized so that we are against a common foe? Absolutely. I would extrapolate that AJ would not favor abolishing America’s borders, or moving them north to undo the land acquisition from the Spanish-American War. (“Houston, we have a problem” would take on a whole new meaning.)
The subtle gradations of position for those who may be persuaded to move from approving a resolution or voting it down are very hard to represent in “the debate is about” phrases.
For us truly to understand these debates and trends, we need to acknowledge, if not master, the study of these gradations.
AJ’s point in this post is very powerful because it emphasizes the budget chicanery that is widely despised with powerful overtones shared with Sen. Brown’s victory. Healthcare’s chicanery is becoming legendary.
Here is a thought exercise: imagine the immigration resolution is pushed using similar chicanery. Where do voters sharing AJ’s point of view tend to move? They may favor the greater vision of the resolution, but despise the political maneuvering to get the resolution passed.
I am part of the gradient that has hated all of this and had no use for John McCain because he epitomized this stupid chicanery within the Republican Party.
When I negotiate contracts for clients, we often have to deal with a very basic question before truly seeking compromise: can you, Mr. Client, see a situation where you will drop your demand to be paid $X and will ‘compromise’ by paying your adversary $Y? If not, then once it become clear that the other side will not pay you, Mr. Client, the negotiation is over. There can be no compromise. We can continue discussions over your principles, the evidence that you rely, or what a judge is forecasted to do. But negotiations will never reach a compromise, until either you, Mr. Client, or your adversary have a sudden epiphany about the case.” The judge in this case is the great system changer. If the parties agree what a judge would do, regardless what they believe the judge should do, a compromise becomes far more likely.
This same lecture is the one that I would offer to many on political debates. The parties are the adversaries. The electorate is the system changer.
If enough of the middle gradients can be persuaded that most any Obama proposal is unacceptable, the negotiation strategy is to stall until January 4, 2011 (no election day, but the swearing in of the new Congress is complete). We must fear a flock of lame ducks dropping bombs on our economy.
Is there a liberal fantasy that the people want this? Rhetorically, they constantly claim that this is what the American people want.
I doubt they believe this is true. I do not doubt that they believe that, if they can get this passed with enough time before the flock of lame ducks fly over the horizon, they will have Americans vested in the plan. Then any attempt to repeal it may end up with Americans on Obamacare and able to go to court to prevent their medical insurance from being taken away.
At that point, the entire electorate is likely to shift a significant step toward Socialism. They are trying to lead the American public on a leash.
This is no fantasy. This is their goal. It can work with a few arguments before the 9th Circus (I mean, Circuit) Court of Appeals, too. How many years before this would get to the Supreme Court without expedited procedures? Too many.
To consider Hussein a failure you must first believe it was his INTENT to grow rather than destroy the economy, create rather than stifle employment, honor rather than trample freedom and respect rather than display utter contempt for the Constitutional rights of 300 million people. Every disaster currently underway in the US has been part of Hussein’s “master plan” to impose a fascist dictatorship on the American people, to grow Big Brother’s influence and power and to create massive dependency on the federal bureaucracy. Hussein is NOT failing, he is SUCCEEDING and must be stopped, by any means necessary.
How many times does it happen, someone says something stupid which is disbelieved or flat-out rejected and they chalk it up to “communication failure”? So what, do they think we didn’t hear their stupid idea the first time (the problem is we DID hear it!) or maybe we just don’t grasp how really smart it is (or maybe they just don’t grasp how STUPID it is). Yeah, Axelrod, it’s all a communication failure – YOURS – in that you failed to communicate in 2008 what an empty-headed ignoramous you had in mind to make the POTUS. Maybe you should’ve made it clear he was a jerk and then no one would need to be disappointed now.
Excellent points hektor. To answer your question on the immigration bill, I would oppose the chicanery, but I doubt a liberal bill would have the items I want in any comprehensive reform bill:
(1) One strike your outta here (any felony and you’re banned for life)
(2) Paying back taxes and fines
(3) End of the citizenship line, not ‘time served’ allowance.
(4) Tough employer penalties coupled with government issued IDs as guest workers
(5) No more magical numbers pulled out of Congress’ back end, let the market set the number of guest workers.
The liberals will probably do real amnesty (gut 1,2 & 3) which means I would oppose the bill.
I could agree on that immigration reform bill also AJ we haven’t seen that one yet.
As far as the almost trillion dollar stimulus bill I suspect we will see the real reason those funds are “stuck” in the pipeline in a few months as election time nears.
It will become a vote buying slush fund for incumbant Dems as Pinnochio started that ball rolling in Nevada!
dhunter,
All those items (and more, like strengthening the borders) were in the McCainn-Kyl bill. All of them
AJ,
You have done well at laying out in 1-3 what lawyers refer to as the “elements” of your criteria for citizenship. Number 4 is spot on. Number 5, I like the tone, but I really don’t grasp the details intended.
The first three elements are fine. As I have been thinking about this, I keep coming back to the Law School Professor question that would arise at this point, “So, what is the public policy that you wish to encourage with this proposed law of yours?” (Oftentimes, professors would use this as a dodge on a student who had just scored a point on the professor’s ham-handed premise, regardless whether (1) intentional and Socratic or (2) just plain-stupid, liberal, knee-jerk premise.)
Still, the question does serve lawyers well in preparing to push an appellate court to adopt some new interpretation of case law that would benefit the client. If you can easily describe the public policy that you are trying to promote and persuade the judges of the policy’s soundness, you are more likely to win.
Reading into your elements and trying to recall from memory your previous writings, I understand that the policy would be to bring the immigrants into legal compliance so that they can “go forth and sin no more.”
I would analogize this process with our bankruptcy laws. The system is designed to give debtors a chance at a “fresh start.” In that system, the policies are set up to encourage honesty, full disclosure, and lack of history of criminal or fraudulent behavior. It is one of the few places in the law that the system is designed to forgive previous sins and send litigants on their way with the pat on the back and the guidance of “go forth and sin no more.”
Everywhere else in our legal system, there is a heavy reliance on the notion that a litigant should be held responsible and accountable for his misdeeds.
In essence, an American citizen is going to be legally held accountable for his legal misdeeds: debts, broken contracts, mishandling of money, misbegotten children, mistreatment of spouses, etc.
I am more likely to be persuaded that an illegal alien should be admitted to the mainstream of society if the rules were at least as strict as bankruptcy: tax returns filed, financial transactions disclosed, no history of fraud, no personal injury debts unpaid (car accidents leading to the other driver’s injury), no history of identity theft, etc.
I would seek to limit the benefits of citizenship to those who do more than clean up their taxes and wait patiently.
I took a phone call this morning from an immigrant with a landlord-tenant dispute on his business premises. He feels unwanted in the US and does not feel like he can get a fair shake. My heart goes out to him for the non-sense he is suffering, but my head keeps questioning how smart this systematic disregard for the law is on his part but his desire to hold an American citizen strictly responsible. The immigrant is getting screwed; no doubt about it.
Should he be allowed to act like he has committed no wrongs? I don’t thinks so. Is this forum to have to face the consequences of his choices? Definitely not.
In 1986, I was all for the amnesty that Reagan signed off on. I soured on it because the process did not live up to its promises.
In the passage of time, I have turned on amnesty because it requires too much of accepting on faith that things like your Numbers 4 and 5 being true. I have no faith that they can be true. Ever.
I have no faith that your Number 3 will remain true. Once we establish a fresh precedent of changing the rules to favor the immigrants, why not just “fix the technical problems” like Number 3 taking decades. I would not see it as a technical problem but a feature of your plan. But not everyone would be willing to take the Bill Gates approach to that. (You know, the Bill Gates approach: don’t accept that a lousy operating system is flawed; convince everyone that they just don’t appreciate the new functionality that they are trying to provide.)
The last amnesty created this demand for amnesty. The Mexicans took it as an invitation to rush the borders and just wait until we could not stand the illegality anymore. Then we just wave (or is it waive as in “waiver of obligation”) the magic wand and make the illegality go away.
How does your proposal prevent the next rush-and-wave cycle?