Politics and Government in America

Today, Nancy Pelosi accused House Republicans of being on the wrong side of the vote for the Obama stimulus plan, and of going against the wishes of their own party.  She is dead wrong on both counts.  Nancy Pelosi has been accused of many things, but one thing she is not is stupid.  So why is she doing this?

The answer is simple, she is doing it to save face. Remember that back in August many of these same House Republicans staged a sit-in to protest the lack of an up or down vote on several bills that could have reversed the economic collapse. Nancy Pelosi on the other hand declared Congress in recess and went out to campaign for Barack Obama. Now she needs to be seen as doing something to keep up appearances.

Both sides know that this package isn’t going to do anything but drive America further in the hole and increase the power of the government. However, they have decided that doing something is better then doing nothing, even if that something will make the situation worse. More importantly, by saying grass roots Republicans are behind this bill, it scares Senate Republicans into voting for a bad bill. Please stand up and make your voice heard loud and clear. Tell your elected officials not to vote for a bad bill. Doing nothing, in this case, is not worse than the alternative.

Barack Obama has been hit by another scandal involving one of his nominees. This time, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is the center of the focus. It turns out that Geithner, who would be the head of the Internal Revenue Service, has failed to pay over $34,000 in taxes, and has an illegal immigrant housekeeper.

Even more interesting in this case, is that Obama knew about the unpayed taxes and simply did not care. He felt that Geithner would play an important role in dealing with the economy and could not be distracted by such things as breaking the law. Additionally the Democrats in the Senate are telling us that this is no big deal and should not block his conformation.

For as smart as everyone seems to think Obama is, he sure has made a lot of stupid mistakes over the past few weeks. This is the third scandal that has been brought to light regarding one of his nominees. One of his nominees actually had to resign before even taking office. Everyday it becomes more clear that the Obama White House is going to be very similar to the Clinton White House, at least in regards to scandals.

Today, two different incidents illustrated exactly what we have to look forward to until at least 2010. First, House Democrats released a report urging President-elect Obama to investigate President Bush and his administration. Second, Senate Democrats announced that they did not believe that there should be any investigation of possible conflicts of interest that might occur for Hillary Clinton should she become secretary of state.

Yes, we are on the verge of a new HUAC investigation into the activities of the current president of the United States. I can see it now. Imagine Nancy Pelosi, ”Haditha” Jack Murtha, and Charlie Rangel sitting in the House chamber asking “sir, are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?” This is what they have promised since the 2006 election, and now they are going to get their shot.

Meanwhile, the self same Democrats are telling us that there is no need to investigate the allegations by reputable sources that Hillary Clinton was running a pay to play scam on the same level as Rod Blagojevich. We also should not investigate whether doners to her husbands “foundation” would expect favors in exchange for donations. Since many of his donors came from unfriendly nations like China this should be a legitimate concern.

So we are supposed to try and prosecute people who have spent the last eight years trying to keep our country safe, and we are supposed to ignore people that have spent the last eight years trying to make themselves rich. Ladies and gentlemen, this is what we have to look forward too as the Obama administration pushes ahead. I have had many conversations with Obama voters who expect him to use the next few years to punish Republicans. One even said that there could be no bipartisanship, because the only thing Republicans were worthy of was hatred. It appears that division, not unity, will be the order of the day for the Democrats over the next few years.

Yesterday the Associated Press released a story about what Barack Obama is doing to prepare for his tenure as president. In the article, one of the things that they mentioned was that he was searching for a new church. According to the article he left his Chicago church “after the pastor, Jeremiah Wright, made controversial statements blaming the United States for the attacks on 9-11.” Factually there is nothing entirely untrue about this statement. Intellectually there is a lot wrong with it.

Yes, Barack Obama did leave his church after Jeremiah Wright’s statements, six years after. Even then he first tried to defend the statements and only left the church after his association with it became a political noose around his neck. However, this is not the template the media is using with Barack Obama. Instead he is going to be portrayed as a man of integrity who has worked hard for the country and always stands up for it’s interests. The reinvention of Barack Obama has begun, be warned.

Facing increasing pressure from gay activists  over the invitation of Rick Warren to pray at the inauguration, Barack Obama has invited an openly gay Episcopal bishop to pray at another inaugural event. The bishop then announced that he will not use the Bible for his prayer, and it will not be “especially Christian.” Bishop Gene Robinson said that he wants his prayer to be about “the whole nation.”

That’s right, to focus on the “whole nation” we must ignore the 86% of the country that identifies itself as Christian to avoid the possibility of offending the 14% that does not. Furthermore, we must make sure that any group that is offended by a decision the president-elect makes has a chance to feel better about themselves. At least as long as that group represents a faction that is not representative of middle of the road America.

As I have been warning for a few monthes now, the Obama White House is continuing it’s trip down the road to become the third Clinton term. Again we are seeing the beginnings of a government of public opinion. It does not matter if a policy or decision is good or bad for the country, so long as it is popular. Even some conservatives have began to fall into this trap. Following Obama’s speech on Thursday, many of my conservative friends told me that I had missed a wonderful speech and that they were full of hope that Obama could fix the economic problems of the country.  When I asked them what specifically he had said that they liked, none of them could actually identify any specific proposals. In fact, they eventually admitted that he had not said anything specific, but his passion and his charisma made them feel like he cared.

This is always true of Obama’s speeches. Long on passion and charisma, short on concrete ideas. He refuses to allow himself to pinned down so that anything that works and turns out good, he can claim credit for it. Anything that goes wrong will always end up being someone elses fault. Responsibility seems to be a word that Barack Obama is not aquainted with, and Americans seem to love him for it.

Last year, Barack Obama promised the United States “hope and change.” So far in 2009, he has given us very little of either.  And judging by the nominations he has made so far, he has little intention of giving us either.

While announcing the creation of a new White House office, the president-elect stated “Change and reform can’t just be election-year slogans. They must become fundamental principles of government.” Then he filled the new position, Chief Performance Officer, with Nancy Killefer, Bill Clinton’s former assistant Secretary of Treasury. This should tell everyone jst what to expect from the new administration, another four years of failed Clintonomics.  At the same news conference where he promised that the new CPO office would “restore fiscal order” to the country, Obama also announce another almost $1 trillion in new spending.  Does this seem like the actions of someone interested in fiscal order?

Meanwhile the press is salivating over the possible announcement of Leon Panetta as the director of the CIA. This is a man who has no experience in the intelligence community. The closest he has ever been to intelligence work was when he helped right the budgets for the Clinton Administration. His most recent political job was White House chief of staff. However, the liberal press has been filled with editorials about how Panetta is better qualified than anyone else to run the CIA. What makes him the best qualified choice? The fact that, unlike Obama’s intelligence advisor John Brennan, he has been very vocal in his condemnation of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.

Meanwhile, lest anyone fear that Obama has forgotten about his friends in the media, he is rumored to be nominating CNN and Time Magazine commentator Dr. Sanjay Gupta to be Surgeon-General. And Obama is ow set to nominate Eric Holder as Attorney-General. You may remember Holder as the assisstant AG who introduced Bill Clinton to the wife of Mark Rich. That meeting went on to involve Mrs. Rich using her “assests” to earn apardon for her husband. It sounds like Obama is seriously ready to get the Clinton band back together, while leaving Americans to ask, “where’s the change?”

More and more, Barack Obama is beginning to look like the typical Chicago politician. First we had the Blagojevich scandal as the governor of Illinois tried to sell the Senate seat, and Obama’s choice for White House chief of staff got caught up in that. Now two fundraising scandals in a row have struck appointed members of Obama’s cabinet.

First Bill Richardson had to withdraw his name from consideration when it became public knowledge that he was involved in a pay to play scheme similar to Blagojevich. Now it has come to light the Hillary Clinton also may have been running pay to play schemes to raise money for her husband’s foundation. So we have three members of Obama’s team all accused of being part of an effort to sell their influnce for personal gain.

This seems typical of the Democrat leadership as of late.  We all remember the scandles of the Clinton years, such as selling nights in the Lincoln bedroom and unmarked bags of cash showing up at the White House. However, even more recently we have had Nancy Pelosi paying her husband a salary out of PAC money and Harry Reid getting rich through a complex series of land deals that were at least unethical.

More and more it seems that corrupt buisness dealings and questionable fundraising are the rules of the day for the Democrat Party. Does the name Norman Hsu ring a bell? What about the fact that Barack Obama has yet to release the names of over half of his fundraisers? The Democrats in 2006 won the election by claiming that the Republicans were enmeshed in a “culture of corruption.” However, in one month Obama has become linked to almost as many corrupt individuals as the Democrats accused Republicans of having? It sounds like the Democrats chickens are coming home to roost.