Rush Limbaugh vs CNN

Campbell Brown over at CNN has issued a challenge to Rush Limbaugh to debate tax cuts with CNN's chief business correspondent, Ali Velshi. On a commentary posted to the CNN site Ms. Brown states "Mr. Limbaugh, you may well have a legitimate case to make about tax cuts and what they can do for the economy. But the histrionics and name-calling, they undermine anything constructive you might have to say."

Limbaugh called Velshi (on his website) "incompetent" and "a disservice to your business". But what Ms. Brown fails to note in her commentary is that Velshi was asked  to respond to the following quote from Rush's Op-Ed "'Tax cuts are the surest and quickest way to create permanent jobs. We know that when tax rates are cut in a recession, it brings an economy back." Velshi responds by saying "This is not the economy that Ronald Reagan ever saw! We have not seen anything like this in our lifetime. Anybody who tells you this is how it works, is lying. We don't know how it works. We have never seen anything like this before."

Interesting that Ms Brown didn't point out that Velshi called Limbaugh a liar in her obviously holier than thou commentary on CNN's website. Maybe before Ms Brown lectures the rest of the media about histironics and name calling she should start cleaning up her "side"  first.

Outspoken Roman

Obama is avoiding divisive stands?

Yahoo News just posted an AP story about President Obama and the new tact he is following. The story's title is "Obama breaks from Bush, avoids divisive stands" (very nicely placed under the Yahoo Video banners that is entitled "Obama's order to close Guantanamo spurs debate"). But I guess the writer of the AP story can't imagine how anyone could have a problem with closing of Guantanamo and revoking "a ban on federal funding for international groups that provide or promote abortions." I don't see any controversy there.

Moreover there was scant internet ink given to Obama's admonition to the GOP to move away from folks like Rush Limbaugh (noted on this blog here). I guess I think that is a divisive stance. Also what about the racist ranting of his inaugural benediction? That isn't divisive?

The AP is in the tank for him and folks should get ready to have the world's most positive spin given to a President by the media.

The Yahoo News story stated that Obama's first couple of days was in "sharp contrast with Democrat Bill Clinton, who set the tone for an ideological presidency when he tried to overturn the ban on gays in the military. It pleased liberals, enraged conservatives and angered both the military and Congress, neither of which was consulted."

Note to Yahoo – as reported on 21 January 2009 – "Some troops unhappy about Obama pledge on gays" where the story notes that "Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs, when asked whether the new administration planned to scrap the law, replied on the president's transition website: "You don't hear politicians give a one-word answer much. But it's 'yes'.""

Yeah – no divisive stance there.

As more and more of the expected leftist agenda is enforced, I am sure there will be more stories of the new tone in Washington and how these stands aren't really divisive. Where are the real journalists these days?

OS Roman

GOP at a crossroads

So instead of posting something about the inauguration (I have my thoughts – I especially loved the racist benediction by Reverend Lowry "…when white will embrace what is right". Yeah, there is a new tone in Washington and change some can believe in) I have been watching the news and the GOP struggling with the losses of the last election. In the news there have been reports of finger pointing (from Colin Powell and others) that folks like Rush Limbaugh are guiding the GOP in the wrong direction.

So Fox News has a report today entitled "Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done". Here is the gist of the story – Obama warned GOP lawmakers that "if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration" they need to basically turn off Limbaugh.

Let me be clear – this would be the death knell of the GOP. It would in effect bring one party rule to Washington leaving conservatives (social or government minded) with no real alternative. This is exactly what the Dems want by the way. They want to impose their agenda on the country with no loyal opposition to their policies. President Obama is actually encouraging GOP to abandon their base just for the opportunity to co-sign or co-sponsor legislation that their base would (probably) disagree with.

Many in the GOP leadership seem to believe that the real successful approach to politics is some "middle way", not being conservative and pushing "right thinking" policies and instead want to push a "Democrat Lite" agenda. The GOP who adopts this approach adopts a party focus that will put them right out of existence. In fact John McCain represented this sort of middle way and of course we see where that got him.

Dems are laughing at themselves thinking of how many GOP leaders actually are considering moving "leftward" and it is a reflection of the strength of their party that the Dems not once thought they had to muddle their agenda to get along with President Bush. They saw themselves as obstructing the Bush agenda not put in place to agree with it (or to support it just to "get things done").

The GOP better wake up and revitalize the base with principled opposition to the Obama agenda. Look to organizations like Heritage to help in that regard and embrace the power of talk radio like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and others to bolster the base. This isn't to say that the GOP should oppose Obama on everything (if President Obama comes out for Tax Cuts or extending the Bush Tax Cuts – by all means support it) but now is not the time to go wobbly as former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher used to say. The GOP base will not long support a diluted party and when all the talk is done about big tents and all that, recall you don't see the Democrats talking about changing their policies. The Dems are in lock step with each other and don't countenance any dissent. For example – tell me the last time a pro life democrat spoke at the convention and then recall the numerous pro-choice candidates who speak at the GOP convention.

The GOP have been sold a bill of goods that is harmful in the long run and before they go off and crow about how they are working with the new administration they should realize the deleterious effects their placid acquiescence is visiting upon this republic.

OS Roman

A scary precedent no matter what

Fox News reports that the child named "Adolf Hitler" and his two sisters (apparently also with Nazi names) have been removed from their home in New Jersey. This is the same tyke who was denied a personalized birthday cake (Happy Birthday Adolph Hitler) when his mother requested it from a local supermarket (story again thanks to Fox News). The cake order was refused because it was "inappropriate". What a riot – could a supermarket deny a lesbian couple a cake because they (the manager?) thought it was inappropriate? Not that I think Adolph Hitler is a smashing name (I don't) but can't we have a little tolerance here (a wee bit of a joke there).

Anyway back to the current ruckus involving little Adolph. No details were given as to why the children were taken from their parents (the local police chief, Sgt. John Harris, where the family lives is quoted as saying ""I've dealt with the family for years and as far as the children are concerned, I have never had any reports of any abuse with the children, … As far as I know, he's always been very good with the children".

The Division of Youth and Family Services rep quoted in the Fox News story did comment that "decision to remove a child is based on the safety and well being of the child and the risk to that child, and that decision is made in conjunction with the courts and the county family court judge." So I am really interested in hearing the justification for this case. Although there is some talk later in the story about potential bullying due to the name, I am very concerned with the state inserting itself into a family's personal decisions (including naming their children a really stupid name).

The government always uses the "welfare of the child" to justify these sorts of actions and one can imagine well intentioned government types coming in and yanking kids out based on names such as Ronald Reagan or George Bush (after all it might lead to bullying in this brave new age). From what I can see, the parents have done nothing "wrong" but have made some really strange and questionable choices. Is it the Government's role to interfere and 'take over' the parenting responsibilities of families if it (the Government) disagrees with what are arguably personal choices? What is next, the Government taking over the auto industry…?

Oh right – that is already happening. We have set up a slippery slope indeed and are beginning or descent.

OS ROMAN

Back in 2009

Yeah, it has been a while since I chimed in. With the holidays and the absolute giddiness of having Obama installed as the next President has kept me from ranting because everything is fine and dandy. Right? There is no more conflict in the world (except for the many ongoing hostilities such as those over in the mid East in Gaza). We have seen how Obama’s cabinet is shaping up and of course it is completely changed from past administrations right – except for Panetta, Clinton, and many of the other Democrat retreads that we are getting in lieu of “change” (or as change?).

I am not in a bad mood though because currently we are reaping what we have sown.  I think it seems obvious that this country will continue to have its priorities backward with regard to the role of Government until we are close to bankrupting the country. I was listening to Jay Severin the other day and he had a great call from a woman with a handicapped child who couldn’t get any help in meeting mortgage payments (she was hoping to defer the interest only until she could get back on her feet) and Jay mentioned the current Obama nominee for Secretary of the Treasury (Timothy F. Geithner) and his tax problems (failure to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes) and how screwed around this country is. This is the nominee for Treasury Secretary and he owes back taxes? The Washington Post quotes Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (a Republican) as saying “I don't think we can get a better person for this position. . . . He has the kind of background that should be very helpful to us at this time." You mean there is no one else out there who has paid his taxes that can address our economic issues. Really? So back to Jay Severin – why can’t the woman who needs mortgage interest relief get similar consideration? Does anyone think Timothy F. Geithner will face charges and fines for his delinquency?

The call to Jay Severin ended with the woman stating that she might change her status to ‘illegal alien’ so she could get some help with her handicapped child and finances since apparently the US Government hasn’t helped so far (or the state government of New Hampshire). Is anyone else bothered and infuriated at how well we treat criminals (illegal aliens) and how badly we treat our own people?

What is Obama’s solution – my guess is his administration will continue to focus on the illegal aliens – recall in July 2008 he stated to supporters in Powder Springs, Georgia:

“I don’t understand when people are going around worrying about, we need to have English only. They want to pass a law, we just, we want English only,”

“Now, I agree that immigrants should learn English, I agree with this. But understand this, instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they’ll learn English, you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.”

Why? What languages do you speak sir? This is madness.

Outspoken Roman