The contents of these articles are based on Fact and Truth. Challenges are invited.
The day’s top political news:
Pelosi says GOP has hijacked 'tea party' movement
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is questioning whether the conservative "tea party" coalition truly represents a grass-roots movement. In a broadcast interview, Pelosi calls tea party voters the "astroturf" movement. She says many of those voters have good intentions but that the Republican Party has hijacked the movement for its gain.
More proof liberal Democrats (such as Pelosi) have absolutely no clue about the tea party movement and the tsunami of outraged public opinion it represents.
Pelosi actually says the tea party coalition shares some common ground with Democrats, such as their dislike of special interests in Washington. She cited public disdain for the recent Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance that allows companies and unions to spend freely on ads that promote or target particular candidates by name.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_go_co/us_pelosi_tea_party
Pelosi: US health overhaul will happen
Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Obama’s health care drive was closer to passage after a high-stakes summit with Republicans who are opposed to the overhaul.
As Democrats wrestled with how best to push the ambitious legislation forward, Pelosi said the unusual seven-hour talks on Thursday "made a difference, and it moved us closer to passing a bill." Actually, that may be a veiled threat Democrats will impose their scheme with reconciliation despite public opposition.
There are no signs Republicans will rally behind the president's top domestic priority, amid public skepticism of the ambitious plan nine months before critical November mid-term elections. Polls show a majority of Americans reject Obama’s scheme and see it as government take over.
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce7b18ff74d1dcc6be3181f05e48255b.151&show_article=1
What caused Washington to become a campaign issue in the Texas governor's race?
Incumbent Governor Rick Perry says he understood how frustrated Texans are with the federal government and how they might want to secede from the union. His rival, Kay Bailey Hutchison, saw that as a decisive moment: "Rick Perry just lost the race today," she told a staffer when she heard the comment.
Their reactions to the anti-Washington feeling that exploded in the Republican Party define the yearlong battle that culminates Tuesday in the primary for governor. Perry caught the sentiment just as it was rising. Hutchison was slow to see it coming. Once the most popular politician in Texas, she's now struggling just to make a runoff against Perry.
Hutchison failed to recognize the growing anti-Washington sentiment – tea party protesters reflect that feeling and are beginning to dominate American politics as we head into off year elections. Democrats have been even more tone deaf to the changing thinking in American politics.
Opinion:
Toyoda-san, the Toyota peril, and “when pets turn on their masters”
This week, we witnessed something once quite impossible: the spectacle of one of the highest ranking Japanese industrialists coming hat-in-hand to admit failure and beg for redemption.
In the days of the Samurai, we would have likely witnessed Mr Toyoda choosing to commit seppuku. A trusted aide would have been standing at the ready to quickly decapitate his master and end his misery and his shame.
Mr Toyoda is no Samurai, although I’m not at all sure he might not have preferred the swift blade of a katana to the glaring eyes of world wide live TV.
I find a political analogy – a reflection of my having been so deeply politically involved for more years than I wish to tally. The Toyota scandal introduces a new horror – runaway automobiles.
Toyota’s scandal reveals a potential automobile danger of which few, if any of us, were even remotely aware. Visions of losing control of a car suddenly taking a mind of its own and having to sit in horror, as the speed rises above 100 mph – unable to do a thing about it.
The political parallel in the Toyota scandal is watching today’s government also running amok and, with increasing speed, watching our deficits and the national debt run out of control. We, as voters, can only sit and watch the certain approach of disaster.
I also find connections in the Sea World killer whale incident. A trainer – confident and often playing games with a killer whale of long association, suddenly being killed. The pet has turned on its master. Think of Democrat politics as the over confident trainer, suddenly being assaulted and killed by a once docile and dominated voting public.
Think of the tea party movement as the orca – and Democrat politicians as the doomed trainer.
Democrats dont grasp the reality of public rejection – just as the Sea World trainer never thought her orca would ever turn. Being killed by her animal, was unthinkable, yet …
Now Obama and Pelosi threaten us with reconciliation – a political maneuver through which they will impose their health care scheme on Americans who reject the idea. The political orca, however, has turned on Democrats – and the Democrats don’t seem to understand or recognize that fact.
Toyoda-san recognized he had no option. So he bowed his head and promised change. Obama and his pals don’t yet get it. Democrats continue desperately selling an idea the two parties are in agreement on many health care details. What they don’t understand is the basic disagreement is not a detail but a chasm. It’s a conflict between government solutions overseen with government control and regulation, versus personal choice and freedom and market-oriented solutions.
Those differences will not ever be completely resolved and the government-run health care option is losing with increasing rapidity – like the gathering speed of a careening, out of control, Lexus.
Democrats saw their once docile pets – “the voters back home” – suddenly turn on them with real fury. Like the killer whale at Sea World, the tea party movement struck incumbent Democrats suddenly and without warning. Tea parties are spontaneous and genuine. Democrat don’t seem to understand that fact quite yet.
The health summit staged by Obama this past week, was political theater and a fiasco for Democrats – no minds were changed and Democrat arrogance was clearly on display. If Democrats make good on their threats of reconciliation, they will incur even more political damage.
Democrats defend their arrogant threats by claiming reconciliation has been used many times (less than 20) and that it is really “Bush’s fault” because -- they claim – he used it. The whining isn’t selling because the past is irrelevant. Voters know – regardless of any past use -- imposing an extreme health care scheme is an unforgivable act of arrogance and an attack on freedom..
As tomorrow dawns and talk shows begin, expect a clatter of call-ins. The phoners will claim to be ordinary people expressing genuine support for the Obama plan. They are all phonies. The Obama “Organization For America” (OFA) has launched a major push to create an impression that Obama’s scheme has lots of grass root supporters. It doesn’t. (If OFA cant generate significant call in volumes – it will mean Obama’s problems run deeper than we judge.
Pelosi, Hapless Harry Reid, and Obama face a circumstance similar to that of Mr Toyoda – without Toyoda’s potential for redemption…and without a trusted aide standing by to end their eventual pain and shame with a swift sword blow. Instead, they will almost certainly be relegated to the idle shelf shared by “Whip Inflation Now” buttons, Hillary-care, and other political non-starters and those politicians who promoted and supported them.
Buddy
Top Blogs of the day:
1.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/to_be_or_not_to_be_conservativ.html
To Be or Not to Be Conservative
Randall Hoven
Should conservatives support moderate Republicans? I provide here pragmatic arguments for supporting more conservative Republicans right now.
To be clear, I am talking about the value of voting for the more conservative candidates in Republican primaries. I am not talking about a third party or the general election. Such cases can be made, but I do not make them here.
The counterargument is that if we support the more conservative candidate, we risk losing to an extremely liberal Democrat. We make perfect the enemy of the good.
One supposed example of such a case was provided recently by Senator Orrin Hatch . According to the Salt Lake Tribune,
Hatch blamed extreme conservatives for the 2008 defeat of Sen. Gordon Smith , a politically moderate but fiscally conservative Republican from Oregon. Hatch said if the Tea Party had not backed a constitutionalist candidate in that race, Smith wouldn't have lost to Democrat Jeff Merkley, whom Hatch described as "the most liberal senator," by 45,000 votes.
Merkley received 49% of the vote, Smith received 46%, and David Brownlow, the Constitution Party candidate, received 5%. The Hatch calculation was that if the third-party voters had gone for Smith, he would have won 51-49 over Merkley.
The result was that instead of a senator with an American Conservative Union score of 33, we have one with an ACU score of 4. (Smith's 2008 ACU score put him one point above Mary Landrieu [32] and nine points below Arlen Specter [42], both Democrats now.)
I now present my arguments, both specifically against this Gordon Smith example and also more generally.
First, the Gordon Smith example refers to support for a third-party candidate in the general election. That is a straw man. What most of us are talking about is whom conservatives should support in Republican primaries. That, at least, is the only case I'm making now.
Secondly, the third party in this case was the Constitution Party, not the Tea Party at all. To associate the Constitution Party with the Tea Party movement was an irresponsible leap of logic.
Third, the phrase "politically moderate but fiscally conservative" is simply inaccurate (as it almost always is). The National Journal breaks down vote scores into economic, social, and foreign categories. The NJ's economic score for Gordon Smith (54) was actually below his social score (60). His foreign score was even lower (46). The next four economic scores below him belonged to Susan Collins (53), Evan Bayh (52), Mary Landrieu (51) and Clair McCaskill (49), the last three being Democrats. Gordon Smith was moderate on everything and conservative on nothing.
Fourth, conservatives and moderates make up 75% of all of us, and even 70% of Oregonians. Why should we have to choose between candidates who are between 4% and 33% conservative?
The way to avoid a Gordon Smith type outcome is to remove the Gordon Smith candidate in the primary and replace him with someone more conservative. Yet the GOP's continued support for incumbents and favored candidates works precisely against such a thing.
If conservatives vote for Republicans no matter what, the GOP receives no signal that it must move right. Then the GOP learns nothing, drifts left, and keeps nominating ever-more-liberal candidates as long as they are at least a hair more conservative than the Democrats. Where does that lead?
It leads to 2001-2006, when Republicans had the presidency, the House, and the Senate, and they accomplished nothing on the domestic front except
• No Child Left Behind,
• Campaign Finance Reform,
• Prescription coverage under the already-bankrupt Medicare system,
• Jim Jeffords,
• Lincoln Chafee,
• Arlen Specter, and
• Ignominious electoral defeat in 2006 and 2008.
You get more of what you consistently vote for.
Finally, there can be a short-term reason to vote for the more conservative Republican in a primary, even if you think he or she has a lower chance of winning the general election than the moderate Republican. There is a fundamental calculation in any one race that can be made in a cold, rational manner.
I admit that the mathematical approach was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but not totally. The idea is that this can be looked at rationally. We might not know all the numbers required for the rational calculation, but the lesson is this:
It is not necessarily stupid to vote for the more conservative candidate in a Republican primary, even knowing his or her chances of winning the general election are lower than the moderate's chances.
The "right" decision depends on how good, bad, or indifferent we think the candidates are and their relative chances of winning in the general election. But the calculation is not a no-brainer. It depends.
And even that formulaic approach is purely for a single race, trying to maximize the "conservativeness" of your next office holder. If we look at the longer term, there are stronger reasons to favor the more conservative candidates having to do with signals from the voters and learning by the GOP.
Essentially, voting for the more conservative candidates is the only way conservatives can send a signal to the GOP to move right. If the party does not learn this the easy way in the primaries, then it could very well learn it the hard way in the general elections. I would say that 2008 was a hard lesson for the GOP. Did they learn anything?
Randall Hoven can be contacted at randall.hoven@gmail.com or via his website, randallhoven.com.
2.
http://townhall.com/columnists/SteveChapman/2010/02/28/safe_toyotas,_and_other_surprises?page=full
Safe Toyotas, and Other Surprises
Steve Chapman
Last week, facing a congressional committee acutely dissatisfied with his company's safety record, the head of Toyota, Akio Toyoda, was asked what he would tell President Barack Obama if he had the chance. His surprising reply: "Toyota cars are safe."
It was surprising because more than 8 million Toyotas have been recalled for safety flaws that have caused dozens of deaths. It was even more surprising because he was right.
No one denies that these defects have caused some horrifying accidents that were preventable.
Still, worrying that you are going to be killed while driving a Toyota that suddenly zooms out of control on the road is like worrying that you are going to die of a spider bite while climbing a ladder onto your roof. Though either is possible, the chief dangers are the ones you take for granted. Driving is a hazardous activity, but rarely because of unsafe cars.
During the last decade, the sudden acceleration of Toyota vehicles has been blamed for 34 fatalities. In that same period, more than 21,000 other people died in accidents while riding in Toyotas. Your own lapses, and those of other drivers, are far riskier than the flaws found in your automobile.
Chuck Hurley, CEO of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, agrees on the pressing need for Toyota to repair its troubled cars. But he estimates that more than 80 percent of traffic deaths are the result of excessive speed, drunken driving or unused seat belts. Last year alone, more than 11,000 Americans died in accidents involving drunk drivers. By contrast, only about 2 percent of wrecks stem from vehicle defects.
Yet Congress is not holding hearings to ask Toyoda why his company sells cars that can travel well above the speed limit, with engines that start even if the operator is too drunk to spell "key." It would rather worry about freakish risks inflicted on us than common ones within the control of individual motorists.
The current sentiment on Capitol Hill is that carmakers cannot be trusted with our well-being and therefore stern government action is in order. In fact, safety is a big selling point in the auto marketplace -- which happens to be one reason Toyota has sold so many cars.
No vehicle is flawless, and a vehicle that accelerates for no reason poses an unacceptable danger. But there's no reason to single out Toyota for congressional histrionics. In the latest analysis of driver fatality rates in different vehicles by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Toyota vehicles do not turn out to be the four-wheeled caskets Congress imagines. In fact, they consistently rank better than average.
The Matrix, for example, has the best record among station wagons, with a death rate less than half of that of the worst vehicle in its class. The 4Runner and Highlander finished first and second among midsize SUVs. The popular Camry and Corolla get high marks for crash-worthiness.
When it comes to defects, the company is hardly unique. Over the past five years, The Wall Street Journal reports, the federal government got more complaints from owners of Fords than owners of Toyotas. Out of 20 carmakers, says Edmunds.com, Toyota is fourth best in the number of complaints per vehicle sold. But none of the others is being used as a piñata.
A more expansive government role is one of those answers that is neat, simple and wrong. "There are 250 million vehicles with 3,000 parts apiece," says Hurley. It's safe to assume the government couldn't police them all, even if it chose to do nothing else.
Fortunately, it doesn't have to do that in order for consumers to be protected. A carmaker's need to attract buyers is a far more powerful force for safety. As Yoshimi Inaba, head of North American operations, told Congress, "Nothing costs Toyota more than the loss of customer trust in our vehicles." Another reliable motivator is the urgent desire not to pay millions of dollars in damages, as Toyota is likely to do once the courts have had their say.
So it is likely to make its vehicles safer than before -- which doesn't mean your morning commute will necessarily be less fraught with peril. Angry members of Congress would like to blame highway carnage on self-interested auto executives. They forget that as a rule, cars don't kill people. Drivers do.
Steve Chapman is a columnist and editorial writer for the Chicago Tribune.
3.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d618a9a4-225b-11df-a93d-00144feab49a.html
US senator warns of ‘financial meltdown’ risk
Edward Luce in Washington
The US is heading for a debt-driven “financial meltdown” within five to seven years, according to Judd Gregg, the outgoing Republican senator for New Hampshire.
In a robust and at times testy video interview for the Financial Times’s View from DC series, Mr Gregg also complimented China for showing rising alarm about the US’s mounting levels of public debt.
“We have had China say that they are looking for other places to put their reserves and that is probably a smart decision on their part,” said Mr Gregg, who will not seek re-election in November. “So the warning signs are pretty clear and the path is unsustainable and, at this point, unless we take different actions, unavoidable.”
But the senator, who was the most high-profile Repub¬lican invited by Barack Obama, the president, to join his administration last year, an offer Mr Gregg accepted and then turned down, said he doubted that the two parties would get together to tackle it.
Last month 16 Republicans and 37 Democrats voted to establish a fiscal commission – seven votes short of what was needed to prevent a filibuster.
Mr Gregg also played down prospects for the non-statutory fiscal commission that Mr Obama set up by executive order last week. “It was just an edict that came from a Democratic president,” he said, adding, that “it’s the only game in town right now”.
Mr Gregg also disputed non-partisan economic studies that showed last year’s $787bn (€585bn, £520bn) stimulus cushioned the impact of the recession. “The facts are wrong,” he said. “I can understand how a Keynesian would make that argument. I find them absurd on their face.”
Mr Gregg also disputed studies that showed the large tax cuts pushed through by George W. Bush, then president, in 2001 and 2003 had added to the US fiscal deficit.
“They were paying for themselves,” he said. “look at the numbers, they did.”
Mr Gregg also elaborated on why he changed his mind last January on accepting a post in Mr Obama’s cabinet.
“The euphoria of the time made me want to try to help,” he said. “But the practical reality of the situation settled in after a couple of weeks. It would be hard for a hardline fiscal conservative to serve in this administration.”
Mr Gregg declined to criticise the “Tea Party Movement”, which commentators believe is dragging the Republican party to the right. He said the “real opposition” to the fiscal commission came from the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page and Grover Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform group, an anti-tax advocacy group.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2010.
Comments