Category: Politics

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Large Pair)

Posted on Comments

The gentleman from Wisconsin steps up:

The Republican chairman of the House Budget Committee said his party’s budget proposal for 2012 would cut deficits by more than $4 trillion over the next decade, vowing to tackle costly entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid.
The proposal, set to be unveiled Tuesday, would serve as the Republicans’ official response to President Obama’s proposed $3.7 trillion budget for 2012. The White House claims its plan would cut deficits by $1.1 trillion over a decade.
But Ryan, R-Wis., in an interview with “Fox News Sunday,” accused Obama of “punting” and said Republicans’ plan would exceed the fiscal goals set by the president’s fiscal commission — which issued a report calling for $4 trillion in cuts. That report never made it out of committee.
“We can’t keep kicking this can down the road,” Ryan said. “The president has punted. We’re not going to follow suit.”

The Beltway spin on this: By proposing large cuts for the fiscal 2012 budget, Ryan’s plan gives House Republicans political “cover” if negotiations over the remainder of the fiscal 2011 budget require them to accept smaller levels of cuts for the current year.

Ryan admits that proposing big cuts — including a proposal to block-grant Medicaid funding to the state — will expose the GOP to Democrat demagoguery. Via Cubachi, here’s video of Ryan explaining his plan on “Fox News Sunday”:

Kudos to Ryan for having sufficient testicular fortitude to get serious about cutting the deficit.

UPDATE: Jazz Shaw on Twitter: “Nobody can hear Paul Ryan’s budget message. Why? Drowned out by the clanging of his enormous brass balls.”

Christine O’Donnell To Publish A Book Called ‘Trouble Maker’

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

Alan Colmes must know someone at St. Martin’s Press, because he’s reporting a Christine O’Donnell book with the title “Trouble Maker” that isn’t even available for pre-order on Amazon. The questions I have are:

  1. Why she gave up politics for biography?
  2. Why did she pick Stacy McCain for her first subject?

Yeah, I’m confident it’s a political book. But how was I supposed to pass up a riff like that, I ask you?

Sir Andrew of Rubesville

Posted on Comments

No sooner does Kevin Drum claim ownership of his gullibility — one tenable option for Obama’s anti-war leftist supporters — than Andrew Sullivan mounts his high horse in protest:

Many of us supported this president because he promised to bring back the constitutional balance after the theories of Yoo, Delahunty, et al put the president on a par with emperors and kings in  wartime. And yet in this Libya move, what difference is there between Bush and Obama?

Well, competence — or at least the common-sense recognition that war cannot properly be fought by piecemeal commitments. Obama evidently wants the Libyan intervention to be something that is Not Quite War, and does not appear to have considered the possibility that this will be more damaging for U.S. interests than if he had ordered a massive invasion of Libya. Sully cares not a bit for U.S. interests, of course, but is concerned only for his own credibility: His erstwhile idol Obama has outdone Bush in foreign-policy high-handedness, thus embarrassing one Andrew Sullivan (B.A., Oxford; M.A., Ph.D., Harvard).

Leaving aside Sully’s tattered credibility, however, let’s consider the situation as it now stands in Libya:

U.S. officials are becoming increasingly resigned to the possibility of a protracted stalemate in Libya, with rebels retaining control of the eastern half of the divided country but lacking the muscle to drive Moammar Gaddafi from power. . . .
New evidence of a possible impasse emerged Friday as an opposition spokesman called publicly for a cease-fire that would halt the fighting and essentially freeze the battle lines. The Libyan government rejected the proposal, saying that it would not “withdraw from our own cities.” . . .

So the Obama administration has, apparently, committed insufficient military resources to achieve any decisive outcome. Every additional day Qaddafi remains in power is like an advertisement of American impotence. And Harry Reid adjourns the Senate rather than permit debate on whether the president has constitutional authority to wage this Not Quite War.

“The president’s own words are incredibly important here. The hypocrisy is amazing. In 2007, the president said, ‘The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.’ And yet here we have a president cavalierly taking us to war. He seems to have had a lot of time to talk to people. He talked to the Arab League; they had time to get together and vote on it. He talked to the U.N.; they had time to get together and vote on it. But he had utter disregard and contempt for the most important body in the United States that represents the people, the U.S. Congress — utter contempt. He’s gone to NATO, he’s gone to our allies, he’s gone to the U.N., he’s gone to the Arab League, but he has not had one single minute of debate in Congress. To add insult to injury, he chose to go to war while in Brazil, while Congress was not even in session.”
— Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)

And rather than allow such a debate, Harry Reid adjourned the Senate — leaving Sully’s shredded credibility flapping in the wind.

UPDATE: Greetings, readers of the Instapundit!


Disagreeing Agreeably

Posted on Comments

by Smitty

American Power links Levin noting the Ron Paul people being intolerable. It’s a variation on the douchebag theme. Anybody can identify the faults in the logic of others. In Alinsky mode, you need to find that flaw and just pack it with every round of rhetorical artillery available. Or, as Genghis said:

The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.

Contrast the Khan job we’ve seen from some of the Ron Paul followers, or the union in Wisconsin, with Reagan:

The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so.

Twenty years ago, in the struggle to survive college, it occurred to me that “If you give your detractors ammunition, they will shoot it at you.” Thus, the question mark is the more powerful form of punctuation when engaged in a serious argument. Trotting out the exclamation point and the CAPITAL LETTERS is handing the other side a few more rounds to fire back.

Another lesson to share is: “Never argue with a drunkard, or a fool.” If you want to practice your arguments with an ideologue, fine, but understand that you could get the same aerobic value on the treadmill. A final thought in this brief meditation is that being gracious is a cheap investment that pays off with honest people. The younger me was all about running up the score in the argument by pointing out technicalities, or going for the Fool’s Mate when the interlocutor missed an obvious point. Now that I’m the bald old bastard forgetting things, a gentle mention without so much triumph helps the understanding so much more.

So, to that Ron Paul fan who once accused me of ‘spreading lies’ when I referred to Pauls ‘non-interventionist’ foreign policy approach as ‘neo-isolationism’, a difference that still makes precious little difference to me: you did little to advance your game, sir.

* * * UPDATE * * *
SPECIAL NOTE TO RON PAUL SUPPORTERS
from ROBERT STACY McCAIN

This is not the evil neocon Bushbot blog you want to hate. From the very beginning of this blog, it has been my policy to avoid direct criticism of Dr. Paul or his supporters, whom I view as potential allies in the long twilight struggle against the goddamned useless GOP Establishment. Exactly why Smitty decided to pick this particular fight at this particular moment, I don’t know. Being deployed to Afghanistan can do weird things to a guy’s mind, I suppose. But we are still not the evil neocon Bushbot blog. That’s called “Hot Air” and the guy you want to argue with is called “Allahpundit.” Go argue with him. Don’t Blame Me, I Voted for Bob Barr. That is all. Thank you. — RSM

NY-25 Flashback: Dan Maffei Still Trying to Comprehend His Own Defeat

Posted on Comments

Perhaps you can imagine the big grin with which I’m writing this, as I think back on that day last October when Da Tech Guy and I arrived in New York’s 25th District and the front-page headline was: “Dan Maffei leads Anne Marie Buerkle by 12 points in new poll.”

That would be former Democratic congressman Dan Maffei, who ended up losing by 567 votes to Republican Ann Marie Buerkle, and who the Politico reports is still trying to figure out how he lost:

As victims of the House Democratic election massacre speak out about what caused their ouster last November, they are pointing their fingers squarely at a Washington duo: Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama.
Then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) moved their party’s agenda too far left during the past Congress. And then they failed to help rescue the party’s mostly supportive lawmakers, two defeated first-termers who have joined Washington-based think tanks said Tuesday.
“Moderates and independents who leaned toward Obama didn’t come out because they saw a continuing polarization. Health reform was only supported by Democrats. So, the message from Washington was that Obama was getting his way,” said former Rep. Dan Maffei (D-N.Y.), who has become a senior fellow with Third Way, the centrist Democratic group.
Party leaders and liberal allies told him that he was too pessimistic last fall when he warned them that he was in danger of losing. Obama and Pelosi “couldn’t bring themselves to believe that it would be this bad,” said Maffei, who unsuccessfully sought a late campaign stop by Obama. “Low turnout was why I lost. My opponent [Republican Ann Marie Buerkle] was seen as fringe and voters didn’t think she could win.”

Look, if Dan Maffei wants to make excuses and scapegoat other people for his own failures, I suppose I ought to just laugh and move on. However, Maffei is actually kind of close to being right about what Obama and Pelosi did wrong. And the weird thing is, Democrats had plenty of warning . . . from me. Continue reading NY-25 Flashback: Dan Maffei Still Trying to Comprehend His Own Defeat →

Ron Klein: ‘No Mas! No Mas!’

Posted on Comments

Hey, remember a couple of months ago when liberals were claiming that “radical Tea Party extremist” Allen West was going to be really vulnerable when he seeks re-election in 2012? You didn’t actually believe that, did you?

Former Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.) said Wednesday he is not going to run next year for the seat he lost to Rep. Allen West (R) in November, despite entreaties from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
In remarks at a Pompano Beach political event, Klein said DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (N.Y.) asked him to run again. While the districts have not been redrawn yet, West is likely to be among the top Democratic targets.
“But I told him, as I’ve told you, I think I’m ready to try something different. I’m looking forward to the private sector,” Klein said, according to the Sun-Sentinel.
Klein’s decision not to run is a boon for the candidacy of outgoing West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel (D), who announced her candidacy this week and notified the press about Klein’s statement. Businessman Patrick Murphy (D) was the first candidate to jump in the race.

Klein, a prodigous fund-raiser and the only potential opponent with district-wide name recognition, was obviously the DCCC’s first choice. The fact that Klein backed out of a re-match with West is a major clue that the first-term Republican isn’t anywhere near as “vulnerable” as Democrats would have you think.

GO WEST!

(Hat-tip to “TR Sterling.”)

Never Take Advice from Your Enemies

Posted on Comments

For example, Harry Reid:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday urged Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to ditch members of the Tea Party and cut a deal with Democrats to avert a government shutdown.
Reid insisted it is those GOP internal divisions that are threatening to shut down the government after April 8, in less than two weeks.
“For the sake of our economy, it’s time for mainstream Republicans to stand up to the Tea Party and rejoin Democrats at the table to negotiate a responsible solution that cuts spending while protecting jobs,” he said.

First point: No Republican is “threatening to shut down the government.” The House of Representatives is controlled by Republicans. The Senate is controlled by Harry Reid and it is he who, by rejecting the House budget plan, is trying to force a shutdown, which he clearly hopes to blame on the GOP.

(Question: Are reporters at The Hill professionally obliged to report Reid’s dishonest rhetoric in this credulous manner, as if they were stenographers or publicists at a p.r. firm? The Hill‘s Erik Wasson “reports” three entire paragraphs quoted directly from Reid’s press release and it is not until the eighth paragraph of Wasson’s article that he begins to permit the GOP to respond.)

Second point: Republicans are doing a piss-poor job of explaining the shamelessly deceptive game being played by Reid and the Democrats, who are not being directly called out on their use of the federal budget as a political hostage. Every day, in every statement, in every public appearance, Republicans should point out that the current negotiations are the result of Nancy Pelosi’s failure, when Democrats held an insuperable majority in the House, to pass a budget for Fiscal Year 2011. Had Pelosi and the Democrats done their job last year, we would not be in our current “crisis” mode, and any attempt to scapegoat the GOP for this situation is nothing but a damned lie.

Third point: If Boehner lets Reid get away with this kind of stuff — driving a wedge into the GOP House caucus — it is Boehner, and not Reid, who is to blame.

The overwhelming Republican victory in 2010 was a clear mandate for reducing the out-of-control deficit spending that has been a deliberate part of the Obama administration’s misguided Keynesian economic policy. In the current budget negotiations, Reid and the Democrats are trying to “win” retroactively an election campaign they lost.

These are self-evident political facts, which are not complex or “nuanced,” and which any taxpayer can easily understand. If Boehner, Cantor and other GOP leaders are unable to articulate these facts, if they let themselves be bamboozled into arguing policy in the phony terms dictated by Democrats, then they do not deserve to be called “leaders,” and deserve the defeat into which they seem to be stumbling.

UPDATE: More stenography from Erik Wasson of The Hill:

Senate Democrats and the White House on Monday were working to finalize a new counteroffer to the GOP on 2011 spending cuts.
The counteroffer would cut an additional $20 billion from 2011 spending on top of the $10 billion already cut by two short-term continuing resolutions enacted this month, sources close to the talks said.

Today is the first time I’d ever noticed Wasson’s byline (he joined The Hill staff in November) and, as in the previous Harry Reid story, here Wasson offers eight consecutive paragraphs of Democrat talking points before making an “oh-by-the-way” gesture toward letting Republicans reply.