Senate's CIA "Torture Report"

It is truth, but truth is not always appearance.

~Ichabod Crane, Sleepy Hollow (1999)

As readers undoubtedly already know...the Senate Intelligence Committee, under the auspice of Senator Dianne Feinstein, has released the very damning report titled "Committee Study of the Central Intelligence Agency's Detention and Interrogation Program." In it we see a pretty horrific picture painted of the CIA's interrogation program; ranging from allegations of "avoiding or impeding oversight" of any kind, was "brutal and far worse" than represented, "not an effective means of acquiring intelligence" etc. Fairly damning and damaging to the Agency's reputation as well as to the United States' standing in the world.

(Before I go on and for the integrity of this topic, I emphatically sanction the use of EIT's on terrorists--who seek to kill, torture, and subjugate the free people of this world in the name of "religious rectitude"--to secure their motivations and plans. My perspective on most foreign policy or security issues is strictly and religiously utilitarian. In that if actions maximize the overall benefit--protecting US civilians, military, and interests--is achieved then the judgement of the action--use of EIT's--should be measured by this metric.)

Now that that disclaimer is out of the way and there is no question as to my motivation let's get started with the critique.

The Partisan Nature of the Report

Absolutely the largest point that makes taking this report seriously extremely problematic is who produced it.

From the Washington Post, (Emphasis Mine.)

The investigation was conducted exclusively by the Senate committee’s Democratic staff. Its release Tuesday is certain to stir new debate over a program that has been a source of contention since the first details about the CIA’s secret prison network began to surface publicly a decade ago. 

So...why weren't any Republican staffers present? Well...the blame and culpability for this being the case lies solely at the feet of the GOP.

“My predecessor, Sen. Bond, was the lead Republican on the Committee when the report was started. Sen. Bond’s determination early on was that this report was clearly a partisan effort, and there was no reason for the Republican staff to continue to participate,” Blunt said.  

(Emphasis Mine.)

Any present day Republican decrying the "partisan nature" of this report should shut his/her collective mouth. Because they, the GOP, had motive and opportunity to fight inside the committee and control some of the report's outcomes. Not take their toys and go home. Anyone who is politically active or pays attention should have known how that these little Progressive knobs would structure this report in the manner they did, it was or should have been expected.

Where the Republican leadership is concerned, these Democrat actions aren't or weren't some kind of fucking recent revelation brought on by a momentary lapse in their judgment. The Republican leadership had five years to mull over this and if they would have stayed engaged they might have had an opportunity to do something about it instead of just crying foul. All of this was part and parcel of the larger problem that has plagued these tools (Democrats) since 2007 and earlier--their Leftist extremism and their sick-headed and morally bankrupt agenda.

If you are uninitiated in the Progressive mind-set towards war and foreign policy, please see this post for an eye opening crash-course on their ludicrous philosophies.

Structure of the Report

By any means necessary...

~Jean Paul Sartre, Dirty Hands (1948)

Piggybacking of the abovementioned content, you would be hard-pressed to convince me otherwise that the Democratic staffers or their leadership didn't start this investigation with the presupposition that the Agency was guilty of transgressions. These little nihilists so vehemently opposed the use of EIT's that they would burst into histrionics at the mere mention of the acronym. So with all the emotional vomiting they had subjected the nation to over the years, they HAD to prove themselves correct.  Regardless of the cost and who it might affect.

In a op-ed for USA Today, former Senator, member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, and Democrat, Bob Kerrey, echoed this sentiment, among other criticisms.

The Republicans checked out early* when they determined that their counterparts started out with the premise that the CIA was guilty and then worked to prove it.

*One point I would like to make is that the motivation that supposedly led the GOP to "check out" for me is still no excuse, they should have stuck it out.

Another problem that this "investigation" suffers from is what was investigated. From the Bob Kerrey op-ed.

I have participated in two extensive investigations into intelligence failures, once when Aldrich Ames was discovered to be spying for Russia after he had done substantial damage to our human intelligence collection capability and another following the 9/11 attacks. In both cases we were very critical of the practices of the intelligence agencies. In both cases we avoided partisan pressure to blame the opposing party. In both cases Congress made statutory changes and the agencies changed their policies. It didn't make things perfect, but it did make them better.

In both of these efforts the committee staff examined documents and interviewed all of the individuals involved. The Senate's Intelligence Committee staff chose to interview no one. Their rationale - that some officers were under investigation and could not be made available – is not persuasive. Most officers were never under investigation and for those who were, the process ended by 2012.

Fairness should dictate that the examination of documents alone do not eliminate the need for interviews conducted by the investigators. Isolated emails, memos and transcripts can look much different when there is no context or perspective provided by those who sent, received or recorded them.

(Emphasis Mine.)

Timing of the Report's Release

The essential ingredient of politics is timing.

~Pierre Trudeau, 15th Prime Minister of Canada

There are many reasons that could be offered for the timing and release of this report. But rest assured, all of the reasons offered are purely political in nature. 

One motivation for the Democrats which has gained traction in conservatives circles was that report was coincidentally released as Jonathan Gruber was given his testimony to the House Oversight Committee on the 10th. Mr. Gruber, in case you forgot, was the so-called architect of Obamacare who recently and on several occasions called the American people, "stupid." 


Another reason that could be considered is that in one month the Democrats are leaving their majority position in Congress. They know full well that propaganda piece would probably have not seen the light of day when the Republicans took over. So they do what Democrats do, they shit all over everything before turning over the keys.

Timing, for Feinstein was a big factor. "I realize the Senate changes leadership in January, and so the likelihood of the report coming out next year was slim and none, so we had a limited opportunity after five and a half years of work to get this out," she said. She conceded that the safety situation abroad was "difficult," but, she continued, "It's going to remain difficult."

Furthermore there is the aspect of hypocrisy and the depth to which Feinstein and her ilk actually oppose the use of EIT's.

From William McGurn in the New York Post, 

 If you really wanted to ensure the CIA never tortures again, why didn’t you just outlaw waterboarding and other methods you call torture altogether — instead of leaving it to an executive order another president might reverse?  

The honest answer to this question speaks to contemporary congressional morality, and underscores how the loudest notes of moral outrage in the Beltway are so often sounded by its least serious people.

After all, back in 2009 the stars were all in alignment for putting a ban into law. The war in Iraq had been turned around by the surge; the CIA in fact hadn’t waterboarded anyone since 2004; and the need for harsh tactics, if ever they were necessary, seemed far behind us.

Indeed...? Why not end it?

Back in 2009 the Democrats had the political capital, the moral authority, and above all else the control of the executive branch and the legislative numbers to make this happen. Beyond burning down the building on the way out, this lends itself to the upcoming general election in 2016. Since the Democrats took such a drubbing in the mid-terms--getting completely decimated in the South--there base is disillusioned, beaten down to the lowest level possible, and the country is souring on their brand. They need revival and they need it badly.

From Ferguson, to Eric Gardner, and now a play from the old playbook that was near and dear to the political hearts of the Progressive faithful...EIT's. Nothing gins up the base like a Bush administration/Iraq war related controversy.  The base gets motivated and therefore mobilized and the wheels will start to turn. But, how far the wheels will take them is another story altogether.

You see the attitude that American's possess towards EIT's has changed quite a bit since the mid-2000's.

From the  Pew Research Center,

Pew Research Center (Fact Tank, Dec 2014)

This may produce fire in the belly of the your local activist--or maybe just indigestion--but the average American is a little more pragmatic on the subject. So...parading the CIA report come election time and the Right will use it as a political wall that the Left's head will be smashed on.

Continue reading ...

Amity Shlaes and the Party of Growth

For those not familiar with Amity Shlaes, she is a political commentator for Bloomberg News, senior fellow in economic history at the Council on Foreign Relations, and author of The Forgotten Man. An extremely impressive historical account of the Great Depression.

In her most recent article Shlaes, an admitted classical liberal, brings up the supposition that the Republicans, "instead of blowing up their marriages, Republicans might try blowing up their party platform. Her chosen route is by "junking the social conservatism," and sticking to a more fiscal and economic platform.

While I am not in total disagreement, leaving behind the traditional moral aspects of conservatism leaves us with nothing more than the political jello that is Libertarianism. And, if I wanted to be a full-time Libertine than I would have an (L) on my voter registration card, not an (I) or (R).

However, from a strategically political point of view, Shlaes does have a point. Social cons have been one of the greatest assets as well as greatest scourges to the Republicans. From Nixon's Southern strategy to George Bush's back-to-back victories, the GOP reaped major spoils from the Religious Right's involvement, activism, and most of all, money. Now though, the moral edifying is catching up with the Grand Old Party and not just in ones or twos, but maybe threes.

This leaves conservatives and Republicans with one of two choices; take the more fiscal and Federalist road as Shales suggests or start producing a crop of candidates whom can talk the talk as well as walk the walk of social conservatism.

Hypocrisy can be one of the greatest undoings of a person or a movement, especially when the bar is set way too high for leaders to deliver on. Likewise, most liberals and progressives have already factored in the component of human hypocirsy and ineptitude into their political equation, as a matter of face they relish in it.

Now it is up to conservatives to decide if they have have the fortitude necessary to get off of the high road and back to the narrow or find some new message packaging that is more effective for obtaining votes.

(h/t to Little Miss Attila)

Continue reading ...

Bob McDonnell: Uncontested in Vriginia's GOP Primary

A new model for GOP success might be arising in the state of Virginia with the former Attorney General, Bob McDonnell, accepting the uncontested GOP nomination for governor.

From the Washington Times.

Washington Times-Republican Bob McDonnell accepted his party's charge Saturday to pry the Virginia governor's office from Democratic control for the first time since 2002.

Before a roaring crowd of more than 10,000 delegates, the uncontested conservative former attorney general tacked toward the middle, focusing on jobs as unemployment climbs in a poor economy.

"To every Virginian who needs a job, to every small business owner trying to make payroll, to every retiree alarmed at losses in their retirement account, to every homeowner concerned about their home value, to every parent writing the next tuition check, to every clergyman struggling to keep a strong community," McDonnell said, "this campaign is for you."

read more...

If the GOP is victorious in the gubernatorial contest in Virginia and more importantly, New Jersey, they may have found the traction and message the desperately need. While Virginia has turned into a purple state, more importantly, New Jersey is a died in the wool liberal state. A victory by either Steve Lonegan or Chris Christie, both GOP candidates, within Jersey would definitely set a political tone for the mid-terms that favors Republicans.

But as I like to say, "Luck favors the prepared." Never count the liberal smear machine out. You still have Rahm and Axelrod to contend with and it is highly unlikely they will go away quietly.

Continue reading ...

Mitt Romney: The Presidential Candidate I used to Despise

On my ride home today, I gave Jason, a part time contributor here at PACT and owner of The Western Experience, a call to see how goings on in his life were progressing and just catch up on daily events. After a few minutes of talking he said something I never thought I would hear coming out of his very conservative mouth, "I am really impressed by Romney and I think he might be the man for 2012."

I was completely aghast by this statement. You see, Jason and I share many common grounds as conservatives and our expectations of conservative candidates are very similar. I think I can speak for him when I say we are looking for a conservative whose economic roots are mostly libertarian, slightly, but not totally, neo-conservative when it comes to national defense and foreign policy, an advocate of small government, and a mainly a traditionalist on social and cultural issues. For these reasons I was utterly perplexed by his take on Romney.

Both of us supported Fred Thompson in the Republican primaries of 2008. After he dropped out I quite looking. I could never connect with Huckabee, McCain is McCain, Giuliani, while I respect him, is way to North East Republican for my taste, and then there was Romney. His fake tan, his Ken doll persona, his bantering against Huckabee, and his always seeming tense put him at the bottom of my list. To me he did not display the characteristics of a man who possessed his supposed executive skills and predisposition.

When I asked Jason why was he now thinking about Romney as a serious candidate he suggested I watch Romney's latest interview he did with Wolf Blitzer. He pointed out that Romney's coherence, fluidity, and intellect had impressed him. So I watched it with an open mind. Here is the interview.



I actually saw what Jason was describing. An articulate, cool handed, even keel speaker, able to transition from one topic to another and command the issue. This was one of Romney's best interviews I have seen recently and it impressed the living hell out of me.

Personally, I still cannot say whether or not I would suggest Romney as the new face for the GOP, it is still far to early to decide. However, as I mentioned before, I am VERY impressed with his showing so far and he is definitely on my radar as a potential GOP leader and even a possible GOP candidate in 2012 for the POTUS.

Jason's take on the Romney interview.

Continue reading ...

The Left's New Crying Game: Pelosi, Pussy Galore, and Misogyny

Earlier the RNC released a video with a James Bond theme and taking on the issue of Pelosi calling the CIA liars. In the mix, the Leftwing echochamber has had to dig deep and you will be amazed at what they came up with to accuse the GOP of.

First here is the video.



The Progressive defense? Well you have one of three choices; racism, homophobe, or misogynist. If you chose either of the first two you were wrong. The Proglodytes ironically went with accusing GOP-ers of misogyny as their defensive line for Madame Screecher.

Take a look at what the bottom rung of the echo chamber had to say, it's really good for a comedic irony.

From the Washington Monthly.

Ultimately, though, political strategy isn't nearly as important as basic human decency here. It's a quality the right is lacking, and this recent pathetic display against Pelosi says far more about them than it does about the Speaker.

Basic human decency, now isn't that a crock. This coming from the camp whom labeled a standing President as Hitler, compared his Veep to Satan incarnate, accused his chief of staff of being in bed with Satan and Hitler, at the same time, drug and continues to drag Palin through the mud, thought it was hilarious when Wanda Sykes wished that Limbaugh's kidneys would fail, etc. Do I really need to go on? I personally could give two $h1ts less about their reaction to the GOP video but don't go around crying about human decency when the last time you engaged in it was at the age five.

From Balloon Juice.

This is a little strange, even for the RNC: they put a racy and fairly offensive anti-Pelosi video on YouTube...

Let's take a look at the hilarious blogad that was running right next to this particular post on Ballooon Juice. Here is a screenshot.



All that Pamela Anderson skin and a post about misogyny right next to it. I guess sexploitation of women is alright but you better not make a mild inference or comparison between Pussy Galore and Pelosi.

Realistically, if no one would have said anything we probably wouldn't have even thought about this supposed link between Pelosi and a Bond girl, if there even is one. Nevertheless the main question I have, "Why aren't they more pissed off about the GOP blatantly calling Pelosi a liar?" That is a far worse implication, which is pretty much in your face, rather than hallucinating misogyny.

Do you smell what I am stepping in?


Related Articles: If you really need to waste your time further exploring this nonsense, here you go.

Riehl World View-Politico On Pelosi: Leave The Little Woman Alone

Hot Air-Video: The obligatory “RNC takes cheap shot at Pelosi” clip

Update: Darleen Click, over at Protein Wisdom, has a cute take on the Left's hyperventilation over this "situation." Better break out some grocery bags, I think we are gonna need to brown bag some Lefties so they can breath.

Continue reading ...

Republican and Conservative Women, The Body Politic

You know, Stacy McCain made a great point, via Ann Coulter, that the stereotypical conservative guy is seen as being some aged, balding, white guy, with a bad complexion and he sweats too much. Well, it got me thinking about the stereotypical view of conservative woman also.

Here is what used to pop in my mind.



Here is the reality though.


Can't forget the recent advent of one Michelle Muccio, the Rebel Economist.



Oh if I only lived back in DC the Rebel would have a stalker...er...admirer!!

Let's not forget to mention the field of candidates and elected officials that conservatives are offering up these days.

Love her or hate her, you have to admit that is a million dollar smile.

How can you go wrong with a woman who is over fifty, hot, and loves the 2nd Amendment?

Another million dollar smile in the making.

Even FOX News has an impressive line-up.






Of course we cannot forget our Democratic colleagues, that just wouldn't be fair or fun. Here are the women of the Left.



Ooooh, did someone turn my stool upside down again? You jokers!



Aaah, I love when the tingle goes up my leg!!



Hey Olberman, I turned your stool upside down. You have room for one more???

Well here are some of their men.





Whew!! Glad I am on the Right!!

Finally, I know this is juvenile but the world is too damn serious these days and a little humor, even if it is tasteless, is what we need from time to time.

Continue reading ...

God, it's torture to hear Pelosi lie.

The scandal over Pelosi's knowledge of the use of EIT's just won't go away for the embattled Speaker of the House.

Sources have leaked to the Politico that Pelosi definitely knew about waterboarding as early as February 4th, 2003.

The Politico-But there’s no dispute that on Feb. 4, 2003 — five months after Pelosi’s September meeting — CIA officials briefed Pelosi aide Michael Sheehy and Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, on the specific techniques that had been used on Zubaydah — including waterboarding.

Also, she was willing to let Harmon carry her water in the fight so she didn't draw too much political ire in her direction.

According to the Pelosi confidant, Sheehy told Pelosi about the briefing — and later informed Pelosi, the newly elected minority leader, that Harman was drafting a protest letter. Pelosi told Sheehy to tell Harman that she agreed with the letter, the Pelosi insider said. But she did not ask to be listed as a signatory on the letter, the source said, and there is no reference to her in it.

This was obviously being driven by the political climate of the country at the time. No politician would want to be seen as stopping anything that was being used to prevent a potential terrorist attacks against the US or its citizens. Since Pelosi and Harmon don't play well together, it isn't hard to figure that she [Pelosi] was willing to let Harmon be the fall-girl if her little memo attempt went South.

This could evolve politically into a bad nightmare for the Speaker if the press keeps hammering away at it. I think the American people will finally have proof of what a few of us have always known, much of the garbage being spewed out of the Beltway by most Democrats was nothing more than political opportunism against Bush, even at the cost of national security.

For the GOPERS, start at the top with Pelosi and work your way down. This is a political disaster being offered up on a silver platter. Now let's watch and see what they are going to do with it.

Vodka Pundit, Hot Air, and NRO have more on the subject.

(H/T to memeorandum)

Update: On Michelle Malkin there is an offering on when waterboarding just might be appropriate.

Continue reading ...

The GOP Reagan-Conservative Conundrum.

There has been much to do over the path which the GOP should travel in order to make it back into power. Some "moderate republicans" such as Meghan McCain, David Frum, and David Brooks argue that the GOP needs to move further from the right in order to win "big."

Even Nancy Pelosi, Screecher of the House, has put her two cents in on the ailing GOP's problems.

Yahoo News-"I say to Republicans in America, take back your party," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., told reporters. "The party of protecting the environment, the party of individual rights, the party of fairness."

Niccolo Machiavelli reminds us though,

"For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are."

Fred Barnes, Fox News contributor, penned an article titled, Be the Party of No for the Weekly Standard. In his article, Barnes, makes the conjecture that the GOP should wear the brand of the"party of no." He provides an interesting trek into politics of the past and provides a badly needed history lesson for our beleaguered Republican strategists.

As he points out, everytime Republicans have faced off against far-left destructive policies they have won.

Weekly Standard-If Republicans scan their history, they'll discover unbridled opposition to bad Democratic policies pays off. Those two factors, unattractive policies plus strong opposition, were responsible for the Republican landslides in 1938, 1946, 1966, 1980, and 1994. A similar blowout may be beyond the reach of Republicans in 2010, but stranger things have happened in electoral politics. They'll lose nothing by trying.

Let's take this one step further an analyze the Democratic victories in 2006, 2008, and some components of the Obama victory.

In 2006 and 2008, Democrats used a fifty state strategy and made incursions into traditionally GOP held territory. By moving further right, far-right by progressive standards, and running a host of Blue Dogs, or moderate to conservative dems, the liberals were able to retake control of the House.

From the New York Times, October of 2006.

NY Times-In their push to win back control of the House, Democrats have turned to conservative and moderate candidates who fit the profiles of their districts more closely than the profile of the national party.

From USA Today.

USA Today-Leaders of the 51-member Blue Dog coalition, which helped House Democrats bolster their majority in the 2008 elections, say they want tighter spending controls in exchange for their support of the proposed stimulus.

Some might grab on to the wording of moderate appearing in this article as further proof that moderates are the key to victory. Not so. What this proves is not that the GOP has gone to far to the right that it cannot win elections, it is that the Democrats had gone to far to the left and needed to appear to return to basic conservatism so they could remain viable.

The basic tenets of the Blue Dog coalition which I recognize to be conservative, are considered a "far-right" ideology by most Progressives. Strangely, in three elections, the progressive wing of the democrats has had to rely on the conservative candidates or having a candidate appear as conservative-minded in order to win "big."

From the Blue Dog Coalition.

The Blue Dogs are dedicated to a core set of beliefs that transcend partisan politics, including a deep commitment to the financial stability and national security of the United States.

Right now fiscal conservatism is the glue which can bind the fractured GOP. Much like the war against communists did when it brought together classical liberals, conservatives, and libertarians under one roof into an impressive coalition. Although important, differences on social issues can be fought out later, now is the time to apply what works. Something us non-Beltway dwelling dullards pointed out months ago.

Finally, Jeb Bush recently stated that it's time for the Republican party to give up its "nostalgia" for Reagan and that the GOP should steal the winning strategy used by Democrats in 2008.

He is actually halfway correct about adopting the Democratic strategy. But not about his "leaving Reagan behind" moment, since following Reagan is exactly what the Dems did.

Transcript provided by Open Left of Obama talking about why he admired Ronald Reagan.

Open Left-I don't want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what's different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

There are a few more examples of how Obama framed his campaign in a Reaganesque style. This is not to say he matched the Gipper on policy but more on political strategy. However as Scott Rasmussen shows in a November 2008 op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Reaganism isn't exactly dead and assisted more in an Obama victory than most realize. Let me list the ways according to Rasmussen.

• Mr. Obama's tax-cutting message played a key role in this period of economic anxiety. Tax cuts are well-received at such times: 55% of voters believe they are good for the economy. Only 19% disagree and see them as bad policy.



• A Rasmussen survey conducted Oct. 2 found that 59% agreed with the sentiment expressed by Reagan in his first inaugural address: "Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."



• Consider that 43% of voters view it as a positive to describe a candidate as being like Reagan, while just 26% consider it a negative. Being compared to Reagan rates higher among voters than being called "conservative," "moderate," "liberal" or "progressive."

If these so-called geniuses running the GOP are ever going to learn one thing it is always model your present fight on situations which have historical relevance. Then adapt accordingly. Consequently, the incompetents are on a quest to reshape the core of the GOP into a progressive model while heavily overlooking the key victories which basic conservatism has brought them. Thus, not adapting but "progressing." Besides anytime Nancy Pelosi is saying, "Hey, be more like us." any person of sane mind should run as fast as they can in the opposite direction. I guess these bozos aren't exactly sane.

(H/T to memeorandum)

Continue reading ...

Arlen Specter, the Newest New New Deal Democrat

As the world now knows, Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) has switched his political affiliations to those which are more suited to his likings.

Specter's switch was more than likely not so philosophically driven as it is motivated by plain old political survival. As one of three Republican Senators who voted in support of the bailout, Specter has received a lot of harsh criticism from those on the right.This has even brought up the consideration within the RNC hierarchy to withhold money from his campaign for 2010.

Specter was also facing a very difficult challenge from former Congressmen, Pat Toomey, in Pennsylvania’s upcoming 2010 Republican Primary.

From Rasmussen Reports,

Incumbent Senator Arlen Specter trails former Congressman Pat Toomey by 21 points in an early look at Pennsylvania’s 2010 Republican Primary. Fifty-one percent (51%) of Republican voters statewide say they’d vote for Toomey while just 30% would support Specter.

Reading the handwriting on the wall, as far as the Republicans are concerned, is not very difficult, most are glad he is gone. However, the reaction amongst the left is a little more blurry.

From the Democratic National Committee.

Earlier today Senator Arlen Specter left the Republican Party and he is now a Democrat.

A Republican for 43 years, Senator Specter has chosen to leave a party that he says has moved far to the right and join Senate Democrats as they work with President Obama to turn our country and our economy around.

Senator Specter courageously supported the President's economic recovery package -- setting politics aside to create solutions to America's problems.

Not exactly the warmest reception one would expect from your newest benefactors.

Also there is the linking of Specter to the bailouts, which will either haunt him politically or make the twilight of his career shine. Your take on that outcome just depends on your point of view concerning the bailouts.

(H/T to memeorandum)

Continue reading ...

Is Mitt Romney the established boss?

Is Mitt Romney the new boss of the GOP? I know Michael Steel is the chairman. I know that Palin still enjoys a high degree of popularity among conservatives. I'm aware that Governor Jindal of Louisiana seems to have a huge upside and promising future. But, Mitt Romney seems to possess something -- call it competence, his success, demeanor or his presidential tone and image -- it is either one of those things, or perhaps all of them, that give him a unique standing in the GOP.

Already setting the tone for 2012, back in February Mitt Romney won the CPAC straw poll for the third consecutive time. He received 20 percent of the votes followed by Governor Jindal with 14 percent. This certainly lends a high degree of interest in Romney's staying power among Republicans after losing out to McCain. Obviously, he does have a lot going for him. For example, he always makes the best of his opportunity by always looking sharp and sounding smart while on camera. He is an expert on the economy and private sector initiatives and sounds reassuring when discussing such matters. In fact he seems to relish in the opportunity to talk about it.

The conservatives that participated in CPAC's straw poll last month said that they were primarily concerned with limiting the scope of government. Seventy-four percent of straw poll participants said they want to limit the size of government, 15 percent said they are concerned with promoting traditional values, and 10 percent said they are concerned with security regardless of the cost.

Those are bread and butter issues for conservatives and most Republicans. Independents also share in parts of these desires but do so on a singularly issue basis as opposed to supporting all of them. If President Obama continues on the path that many say will definitely peak the outrage of those in support of these ideas, there may be a renewed urgency to reverse course and go with something different but as believable in 2012. President Obama has already lost most of the support from independents who supported him during the election according to Dick Morris.

So the question is, will Mitt Romney be the force of the GOP in 2012? He seems to be in prime position better than anyone else and enjoys overall approval from enough Republicans to build upon. While Romney himself is picking up the pace in travel and hiring staff and looks to be getting ready for the campaign season during the midterms in 2010, and of course, for his own campaign in 2012.

At this point, he may not have a rival and I have a strong feeling that Republicans and conservatives will have a much stronger sense of urgency in getting behind a nominee who can win. And right now, Romney looks like he can deliver.

Here is former Governor Mitt Romney on Larry King Live. Notably, he said that President Obama is learning on the fly and should focus more on presidential things. Another thought that more Americans are starting to agree with.

Larry King: Some are seeing a problem with the president doing the "Tonight Show," the first sitting president ever to do a late-evening [talk] show. Do you have a problem with it?

Mitt Romney: Well, this probably isn't the right time for it. I line up with Warren Buffett on this. I prefer to see the president focusing all of his time and energy on the economy.

King: That's what he was talking about.

Romney: He is talking about it. He's out doing a rally in California. He's posing for the cover of magazines and doing a number of things. He's putting together a health care plan, putting together a cap and trade program, a lot of things on the agenda.

And frankly, if you're doing too many things, a couple of important things can slip by. And one of them that slipped by was the AIG legislation that allowed AIG executives to get these bonuses. It was put in a specific bill.

King: Are you as angered over this AIG thing as probably 90 percent of the public?

Romney: Yes, my view is that this is really the fault of two parties. One, the members of our government that weren't paying attention, at best. That's the most favorable way to characterize it. ...

The other, of course, is the folks at AIG. And you ask yourself, why couldn't they have done what other enterprises do that get in trouble, which is people come together; they talk about the sacrifice they are going to make to try and keep the enterprise going. But these guys seemed not to be willing to do that. ...

This is a president who is learning on the fly. He's never turned anything around before. He hasn't had the experience of leading a nation or a business or a state in trouble. And the first rule I can tell him is focus, focus, focus.

King: How do you account for the fact that his popularity stays high?

Romney: I know that people recognize that this is a man who is a decent fellow. He's intelligent. He's well-intentioned. He's just not experienced in the matters that we're dealing with right now.

Continue reading ...

Earmarking GOP Hypocrites

TaxPayers for CommonSense has put together a fantastic data base on the Omnibus spending bill, the states which receive the most earmarks and the worst government offenders.

From TaxPayers for CommonSense,



Cochran (R-MS.), Wicker (R-MS.), Landrieu (D-LA.), Harkin (D-WI.), Vitter (R-LA.), Bond (R-MO.), Feinstein (D-CA.), Inouye (D-HI.), Shelby (R-AL.), and Grassley (R-IA.)

Six out of the ten worst offenders are Republicans. If you are going to talk the talk, then you are going have to walk the walk. They are HYPOCRITES and there is no getting around it.

Of course, for the Mississippi and Louisiana delegation, there is the argument that Congress has been holding back or releasing Katrina money for assisting homeowners to rebuild. This has left these Senators with little choice but to seek out extra money to help in the effort to rebuild their states. You can decide that one for yourself, to me there is no excuse.

Republican leadership and some constituents are indignant about the Obama's spending and earmarks, his hypocrisy is inconsequential. Anyone who is politically informed should know that he would say one thing and do another, eternally campaigning.

Nevertheless, the GOP is another story, the leadership has chosen to stand under the banner of fiscal conservatism in an effort to reunite the party and to have a chance to stand against the Democrats in 2010. The question is how can you preach a certain standard, talk about Obama's inadequacies, and then not live up to that standard? This equates a recipe for defeat. So, until the GOP cleans up its own house you should get used to hearing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid.

Continue reading ...

Senate "Conservatives" Claim Opposition to Stimulus

The Alice's in RINO Land might have learned a little something from their GOP counterparts in the House. Senate Conservatives are vowing to oppose the Obastimulized Pork-Chop of 2009.

From LiberalizetheUSAtoday,

Some Senate Republicans vow opposition to stimulus plan

USA Today — A group of conservative Senate Republicans vowed Thursday to vote against an $888 billion economic stimulus package when it comes up for a vote in the Senate.

"A trillion dollars is a terrible thing to waste," said Sen. Roger Wicker, R-Miss., standing with Republican colleagues who said they feel shut out of the process of crafting the stimulus despite Democratic promises of bipartisan cooperation.

President Obama lobbied Republican congressional leaders to support the measure, but the version of the stimulus bill approved Wednesday by the House did not receive any Republican votes. The Senate is expected to start debate on Monday and the bill is already facing resistance from some Republicans. read more..

Odds are that this will pass the Senate, you still have the Snowe/Voinovich/Spectre/Collins factors to deal with. McCain has stated he will vote against it, "in its present form." Graham will go the way of his dear old Dad, so how they factor into the equation is uncertain. Keep in mind, McCain is adept at maneuvering around his past statements and flip flopping. You know, a real Maverick, in his own mind.

Final lesson to the Senate GOP, most of the time your fingers operate independently of each other. However, once in awhile they can come together and form a fist. Losing is acceptable, but do it together. Break ranks and you might as well change your party affiliation to "D," you won't survive a GOP primary in 2010.

(H/T to RobV, over at The 46, for enlightening me to this article with his post, Senate Republicans Vow To Crush Stimulus.)

Continue reading ...

Economic Solutions: The Light Bulb for Congress

CT

Okay, the boobs in Congress have let another 24 hours pass without any resolution or given any hint that anyone has a bright idea. So, Opie and I are going to take a shot at it. I think that beyond a shadow of a doubt, this is the fault of three entities; 1) Government, this means anyone with the Fed, not just Republican and not just Democrat. 2) Wall Street and their greed. 3) The Americans who had their hands out. Now under our present solution who is going to pay for it? The same people who pay for everything else, the folks who take care of their bills. Opie is going to take on the first part of the necessary solutions.




Pundit,

Unfortunately laissez faire capitalism has run amok, free market anarchy. The Wall Street dumb asses got real rich off our backs and stupidity. Now you have every screaming socialist Nancy Pelosi wannabe yelping about the need to regulate, regulate, regulate. They are partially correct, but common sense should tell you that trying to correct one extreme with another extreme doesn't work. To bad common sense isn't so common. Here is what we propose.

Regulation, Oversight, and Transparency:

Okay stupid, meaning Congress, why are you going to create new regulation when you already have regulatory bodies in place? This is like the idea of immigration reform, we already have the laws in place, no one was enforcing them. So, what is everyone's answer? Let's make new laws and not enforce them, yeah that is really smart.

The two regulatory bodies that need to step up are the SEC and the FTC. Or, combine them into one regulatory agency with the necessary authority to protect the American tax payer's interests. But there are a few areas that could use some regualtion, not much, just a little.

Most companies have a luiqidation problem, meaning they do not have enough physical capital to absorb loses if they require being luiqidated. Basically, they don't have enough money to pay their debts. Regulation in this area may not be bad. You could set up limits for major companies to have to keep a certain amount of capital on hand at all times, just for times like this.

Loan practices also need to be re-thought, this is one area where government intervention is great. Giving out loans like a drunken sailor so you can get a commission is criminal. Set up better qualifications for loans and make these banks adhere to them strictly. Also, keep them in flux so their lawyers cannot come up with game plans to get around them. Alter them every year or two to keep the banks on their toes and honest. This is more of a preventative measure for the future than anything.

But, the biggest problem with all of this is has been the lack of transparency in the market. Oh you mean this just slipped by the bean counters? Yup, there was a gap in the amount of transparency needed to make sound judgements plus the bean counters were asleep at the wheel as they drove us off the cliff. The regulation we really need is shining the light on these Wall Street rats when they are screwing up. If they are, these agencies need the authority to correct it at the lowest levels possible and make it as painful as possible.

But before you go to far with prosecution, let the peasants have a crack at them. With all this transparency there needs to be a way to let the peasants, such as myself, know what is going on with the market. Work it out with the MSM or create a highly publicized website and put this information out there in layman's terms for the everyday working stiff. Citizens Against Government Waste have proven this can be an effective tool, so let's try it out where Wall Street is concerned. Not bad for a peasant, eh? On to CT.


CT

Buy outs by the government and private sectors:

Since the tax payers were complicit in some of this garbage going on there is a need to fork up some of the money for the bailout. But the government needs to be approaching this in an investment frame of mind. A solid shot liquidity into the market is unfortunately needed, but I am doubtful it is the amount necessary that Sec. Paulson has suggested. I would cap it at $250 billion, yup, that's a lot of money, but better than $700 billion. Just consider it an investment if the government is able to turn around and make a profit. And if they do give a dividend check to the American taxpayer when that profit is achieved. I guarantee the public would be more receptive to that idea than just giving up their money.

Now on to the private sectors. Allow the gap to be filled by the private sector. When Merrill-Lynch vaporized BOA was there to pick up the wreckage. Now, we have Wachovia being taken over by CitiGroup. Are you starting to see the pattern? These companies have the capital to absorb these bad loans and possibly make a profit with them at a later date. By allowing the government to absorb some of these "toxic loans" and letting the private sector correct what is left you have struck a balance. Not to mention the new investment potentials.

Tax cuts and spending:

Raising taxes is not even an option right now. Anyone who even suggests it should be removed from the gene pool immediately. Taxes need to be lowered even further as well as government spending. Lowering corporate taxes, personal income taxes, elimination of wind fall profit taxes, etc. will spur savings and eventually investment and spending by consumers. This is absolutely necessary for recovery.

Government spending needs to be curtailed with a serious degree of urgency. Especially if the government is going to be absorbing so much debt. We will cripple the economy beyond repair if we keep going in this direction and it is even more pressing than it was before the bubble burst. If you get the government back into the black and fiscally responsible it will assist in increasing the value of the dollar which can potentially drop the value of our overall debt.

Balance is the key to success through out this whole situation, not anger and partisan bull. We don't need overt government regulation, stimulus packages, or a blame game. We need to work through this with common sense and temperance. I understand that Opie and I are not economists but at least we can see the forest despite the trees.

-CT

-OmegaPundit

"The last words on everything."

Update:

WASHINGTON - In a bold bid to revive President Bush's multibillion-dollar financial rescue plan, Senate leaders scheduled a vote for Wednesday night on a version of the bill that adds substantial tax cuts meant to appeal to Republicans when it reaches the House. [1]

Maybe they are hacking my computer, lol. But don't get to excited they are only thinking half way smurt.

The gambit is certain to anger some conservative House Democrats, who object to tax cuts that are not offset with spending cuts. [1]

[1] Senate to vote on rescue plan with added tax cut

Continue reading ...

GOP: Adapt, Improvise, and Overcome

C.T.

With the way Republicans have been the past few years I hate giving them any credit on some apparently successful actions. Usually they suffer from dementia, that has long plagued the Democrats, and end up shooting themselves in the foot.

While the Liberals/Poptards/MoonBats run amok in Denver, claiming to be healing rifts while their power players make new ones, the GOP is in a strategic mind set. They are dealing with their rifts behind closed doors and are apparently meeting in the middle, not the centrist middle, the reasonable middle.

Steve Spruiell, for the National Review, had this to say about the GOP's crafty energy policy that will be presented at the convention.

The global warming vs. climate change debate was part of the effort to find a common ground between McCain, who believes that warming is an urgent threat that requires an aggressive reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions, and Republicans who are skeptical of such claims. [1]

The expected fissure between Mr. Maverick and the GOP conservatives popped up and I am sure a lot of people were thinking, " Oh great, here we go again." But, everybody took a breath and seemed to rely on their intelligence, not their emotions.

The chair and co-chair of the subcommittee told the delegates with the biggest concerns to work together on alternative language rather than file a bunch of separate amendments. “Essentially, we re-wrote the first paragraph,” says the delegate I talked to. “We decided to strike the whole thing and come up with something better.” [1]

This led to this draft being used for the climate change agenda.

The new version dropped the sentence that attributed warming to human activity. It also added a line after “measured and reasonable steps” that stated, “Any policies should be global in nature, based on sound science and technology, and should not harm the economy.” [1]

What can I say? I applaud the energy sub-committee, this little piece of semi-genius is simple and eloquent. They did not try and over complicate the message with legal rhetoric, scientific drooling, or McCainisms. This is a solid conservative way of approaching this issue.

Although not all the delegate committees were sitting around at the end of the day singing Kumbyah. Ironically, the national security group had trouble. One would think that this would be the one area where the GOP would excel and climate change would be where they falter.

Delegates were split into different subcommittees and it was in the national security meeting where members got into heated discussion surrounding the issues of amnesty and English as the official language of the United States. [2]

The debate was filled with words such as a “friendly debate” and “respectful disagreement” but it was clear that behind the friendly terminology there was real dispute among the members, especially with the thorny issue of illegal immigration. [2]

Yes they are having problems in certain areas, but they are being forward thinking about issues, how they construct their stances, and not thumbing their noses at new ideas. I found this very interesting, the GOP is listening to their voting base.

The RNC calls this platform drafting process the most transparent and open in their history. They received over 12,000 submissions from the public via YouTube addressing concerns people wanted to see in the platform. [2]

The GOP does have its challenges, but I think the overall attitude is that they are preparing for battle. Not in the traditional sense of Rovian smears, overwhelming their opponents with money, and lip service. These are the tactics that the Dems are practicing these days, and why not, it is what defeated them in 2000 and 2004. But, the playing field has changed for the GOP; they are more streamlined, they are listening, and they might be applying some good ole organic conservative thought. They seemingly, have adapted.

C.T.

[1]Cooler Heads in the GOP
[2]The RNC Meets to Draft Their Platform: Sparks Fly on the Issue of Illegal Immigration

Continue reading ...