...by the pricking of my thumbs, something liberal this way comes.



Deconstructing Obama's War Myth: Troop Surge Instrumental in Iraq Victory



Click for Houston, Texas Forecast Watch Will Malven On
FREEDOM BROADCAST NETWORK

Channel 11 - Straight Talk!



Thursday, July 31, 2008

First Listen: Texas PolicyCast interview with The Honorable Barry Goldwater, Jr.

The late Senator Barry Goldwater is one of the iconic figures in the conservative movement. A new book, Pure Goldwater, looks at the senator's life, career, and beliefs through a new prism - that of his own writings. Barry Goldwater, Jr., the senator's son and himself a former seven-term congressman from California, worked with John Dean to organize the senator's journals and letters into a compelling personal portrait. This week, we present a conversation with Barry Goldwater, Jr., recorded shortly before his keynote remarks at the Americans for Prosperity/Right Online "Defending the American Dream Summit" in Austin.

Labels: , , , , ,

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

IndyMac Bank Collapse: Brian Horey Comments

In my recent article addressing the impropriety of Senator Chuck Schumer's decision to publicly release letters he sent to bank regulators expressing his concerns regarding IndyMac's solvency and lending practices, I posed the question whether Mr. Schumer had any business dealings from which he might have stood to gain by causing the bank's collapse.

Though the question was not unreasonable, I did mention one investment banker, Brian Horey, specifically and his company, Aurellian, LLC. In doing so, it could be construed that I was implying that Mr. Horey or his company were involved in doing something wrong.

There is nothing immoral or improper about short-selling a stock or any other commercial paper. It is an accepted and completely ethical means of investing and an effective means of protecting oneself in a bearish market.

As I previously stated, I have no reason to question the ethics or investment practices of either Mr. Horey or his company.

In the interest of fairness, I am posting, with his permission, an e-mail I received today from Mr. Horey addressing this very issue:


Will,

I belatedly came across your speculation of a possible relationship between Senator Schumer and myself. There is none. We were short in IndyMac long before Schumer got involved. Our research into the housing and mortgage bubbles began in 2005 and the overwhelming proportion of our profit in our Indymac position was earned well before its last two weeks as a still-solvent institution. If you look around, you will see that I have been quoted on the housing and mortgage market problems for the better part of the last two years.

That said, I don’t think Schumer was a constructive force in the final days of IndyMac. I think the bank was likely to end up in the hands of the FDIC, even without his shove in that direction, but his statement undoubtedly hastened its demise to some unknowable degree and increased the ultimate cost of the bailout to the taxpayers.

Brian Horey
While I believe that Senator Schumer's behavior and his direct involvement in causing the IndyMac Bank to collapse by publicly releasing the text of his letters to the Office of Thrift Supervision and the FDIC and thus sparking a $1.3 Billion run on deposits over the following 11 days were the actions of an unethical and self-aggrandizing politician and as such deserving of censure (an unlikely occurrence with Democrats in charge of the ethics committees), I do not believe that his actions were in concert with any banking or investment firms.

We at houston conservative have come to expect this kind of behavior from old "Microphone Moth" Schumer, but this sort of reckless disregard for the welfare of investors is stunning even for Senator Schumer.

I wish to express my gratitude to Mr. Horey for giving me this opportunity to correct any misperceptions my comments may have precipitated.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Friday, July 25, 2008

McCain's German Experience Much More Relevant to Americans

In a coup worthy of the greatest publicity seeker, McCain managed to upstage and slap down Barack Obama in a single trip to a German restaurant in German Village, Ohio.

By staging his own German event, Presidential hopeful John McCain played Obama for the fool, making the Presumptuous Democrat Nominee look arrogant and out of touch.

It may come as news to Barack Obama, and his Democrat adorers in the MSM, but as much as they believe they should be able to, Europeans cannot vote in an American Presidential election. Thus Obama's bizarre and somewhat unseemly speech before 200,000 Germans, most of whom appeared more curious than worshipful is singularly out of place.

Americans (hopefully) want a President who will be President of the United States of America, not President of the European Union.

As for Barack's speech, it was very well written for him, very well delivered by him, full of soaring phrases, and almost completely devoid of substance...kind of like Barack himself.

Democrats, and Barack in particular are entirely about style rather than substance, and his speech Thursday brought that jarringly into focus.

Even more interesting to me was the measured response by the assembled 200,000 attendees. The reception they gave Barack Obama was polite, but somewhat more reserved than, I suspect, Obama's campaign expected.

In the approximately 30 applause lines, response was positive, but lacked the enthusiasm of the receptions given Kennedy, Nixon, and Reagan.

In some ways that is to be expected, as the other three were Presidents rather than candidates for the Presidency, but I doubt that the reception Barack Obama has received met with his campaigns expectations.

McCain indirectly questioned the propriety of an American Presidential Candidate giving a political speech in Europe saying, "I'd love to give a speech in Germany, a political speech, a speech that maybe the German people would be interested in, but I'd much prefer to do it as president of the United States, rather than as a candidate for the office of the presidency.”

Also of note; McCain didn't simply upstage Obama with his good natured mockery of Barack's trip to Germany, he soundly spanked Obama for his lack of understanding of how victory is being achieved in Iraq and repeating his charge, justifiably made, that "Obama has shown that he would rather lose a war than a political campaign."

McCain also took Obama to task over his failure to visit our wounded troops at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Landstuhl, Germany. McCain is not alone in finding it curious that Obama would deem it "inappropriate" to visit our wounded warriors. Perhaps that is the reason that the Obama camp has now issued three separate explanations as to why he "dissed" those young heroes.

The longer this campaign goes on, the more unsuited for the White House Barack Obama appears.

His arrogance and ignorance combine to make him a perfect Liberal, and a presumptuous and unacceptable would be President.

Way to go John. When I saw you at that German restaurant, I laughed out loud. Talk about a complete in your face slapdown...

Long Live Our American Republic!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Thursday, July 24, 2008

First Listen: Texas PolicyCast interview with Robert Novak

Nationally syndicated columnist Robert Novak is widely regarded as the dean of conservative journalists, having covered and commented on national politics for more than half a century. He was in Austin last weekend for the Americans for Prosperity/Right Online "Defending the American Dream Summit," and we caught up with him to get his thoughts on the state of the conservative movement and the current presidential campaign.

Labels: , , , ,

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Chronicle's Obama Fund Raiser List Incomplete: Here's the Rest of the Information

The Houston Chronicle listed the corporate affiliations of every one of John McCain's Texas fundraisers, but note that the Obama camp failed to provide the same information on those in their camp.

I am certain this was a simple oversight on their part (ahem) so, lest they appear too far into Barack Obama's camp, I thought it would be nice if I helped the Chronicle by filling in the blanks.

BARACK OBAMA's TEXAS FUND-RAISERS

John Arnold
Houston, TX
Occupation: Former Enron Trader, runs Centaurus_Energy_Advisors, a Houston based energy trading hedge fund
Employer: Self

Elise Boyan
San Antonio, TX
Occupation: Wife of HEB Chief Strategic Officer Craig Boyan, Unemployed/Homemaker
Employer: Self

Russell Budd
Dallas, TX
Occupation: Senior Partner and Trial Lawyer.
Employer: Baron & Budd, PC

Grace & Bob Cavnar
Houston, TX
Former Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
Employer: Mission Resources, Milagro Exploration

Roland Garcia
Houston, TX
Occupation: Attorney
Employer: Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Doug Haloftis
Dallas, TX
Occupation: Attorney
Employer: Gardere, Wynne, & Sewell, LLP

Philip Hilder
Houston, TX
Occupation: Attorney
Employer: Philip H. Hilder & Associates, P.C.

Ron Kirk
Dallas, TX
Occupation: Lobbyist
Employer: Texas Energy Future Holdings Limited Partnership

Neal Manne
Houston, TX
Occupation: Antitrust Lawyer
Employer: Susman Godfrey L.L.P.

Cappy McGarr
Dallas, TX
Occupation: President
Employer: Mcgarr Capital Holdings, Llc

Richard Mithoff
Houston, TX
Occupation: Attorney
Employer: Self

Michael Rawlings
Dallas,TX
Occupation: Chairman
Employer: Metro Dallas Homeless Alliance, a private-public 501(c)(3) partnership

David Gail
Dallas, TX
OccupationL Law Student/Activist SMU School of Law
Employer: None

Martin Siegel
Houston, TX
Occupation: Attorney/Democrat candidate for 14th Court of Appeals - Place 7
Em;loyer: Self

Gerald Smith
Houston, TX
Occupation: Investment Advisor
Em;loyer: Smith Graham & Co., Investment Advisors, LP

Abigail and Todd Williams
Dallas, TX
Occupation: Todd - Partner and Managing Director - Real Estate and Private Equity
Employer: Goldman Sachs

Steve Zager
Houston, TX
Occupation: Attorney
Employer: Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP

Bill Perkins
Houston, TX
Occupation: Director/Risk Manager/Managing Partner
Employer: NorthernStar Natural Gas/Centaurus Energy/Zahr Securities

Mikal Watts
San Antonio, TX
Occupation: Trial Lawyer
Employer: Watts Law Firm

Naomi Aberly
Dallas, TX
Occupation: Homemaker; Former Chairman of the Board - Planned Parenthood of North Texas; Wife of Immigration Lawyer Larry Leibowitz
Employer: None

Tony Chase
Houston, TX
Occupation: CEO of Houston-based ChaseCom LP, CEO of Chase Radio Partners LLC, fromer member of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas
Employer: Self

John Gorman
Austin, TX
Occupation: Chariman of the Board, Director
Employer: Tejas, Incorporated (Investment Broker)

Mark Iola
Dallas, TX
Occupation: Attorney
Employer: Stanley, Mandel, & Iola

Kirk Rudy
Austin, TX
Occupation: Real Estate Broker
Employer: Trammel Crow Co.

Alexa Wesner
Austin, TX
Occupation: CEO and Chairman
Employer: Hire Tech Recruiting

Kneeland Youngblood
Dallas, TX
Occupation: Co-founder of the venture capital firm Pharos Capital Group, LLC
Employer: Self
Now, that's better. We wouldn't want "unwarranted" charges of bias to be leveled at the Houston Chronicle, that bastion of "objective" journalism, simply because they lacked the will to research those in Obama's bundling circle.

I am certain that they were not trying to hide anything. As I stated earlier, merely an oversight.


After all, fair is fair.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

John McCain's New York Times Op-Ed, Complete

The New York Times demonstrated just how far into the Democrat Camp they have marched when they refused to print an Op-Ed written by John McCain in response to one, which they did publish, written by Barack Obama just one week before.

David Shipley, Op-Ed Editor and former Special Assistant to the President and Senior Presidential Speechwriter during the Clinton Administration (no source of bias there, eh?) refused to publish McCain's editorial then told him what to write so that he would be published. In effect he refused to publish McCain's Op-Ed because it didn't "mirror" Obama's.

McCain shouldn't have to mirror Obama to be published, that allows Obama to set the agenda and the parameters of the discussion.

Since the New York Lies Democrat Times refused to allow an open debate on its pages, I am (courtesy of the Drudge Report) posting McCain's entire Op-Ed:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.
I suspect that David Shipley's refusal to publish had more to do with the fact that McCain thoroughly shreds any credibility Obama might hope to gain from his little "Pretend to be President" trip.

Comparing McCain to Obama is such a mismatch that I am still amazed that people could even consider voting for Obama. The man is such a totally empty suit that he is dangerous. He not only lacks the knowledge to be president, he lacks the depth of experience, the maturity, and the gravitas to hold the office.

It should be an affront to the American voters that Obama is presumptuous enough to believe he should be president.

But then, entitlement is what Obama's candidacy is all about.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Sunday, July 20, 2008

For Harry Reid, Doing His Job By Confirming Judges Isn't Important

For Harry Reid, keeping one's word isn't a core value.

For Harry Reid, doing the job the tax-payers pay you to do isn't a core value.

In fact, for Harry Reid playing politics and one-upmanship are far more important than the needs of the American people.

Just as his flip comment of "who Would be afraid of him [President George Bush]" demonstrated a cavalier disregard for accepted standards of decorum and respect for the Presidency, his dismissive attitude towards his constitutional obligations to fill open seats on our Circuit Courts demonstrates how little he cares about the needs of our people and doing the job the American people pay him to do.

Of course he has very little regard for our laws anyway, having been on the receiving end of a number of "Sweetheart" real estate deals in his home state.

Harry Reid is a little man, a petty man, as shallow in intellect as he is in judgment. His snarky attitude reflects a level of immaturity surprising in any elected official, but jarring and unacceptable in one who holds the Majority Leader's Seat in the United States Senate.


He lacks honesty, courage, and vision and, just as it was with Tom Dashle before him, his sole concern is how to obtain political advantage. He cares nothing for the people he was elected to represent.

Sen. Harry Reid Claims Judges Don’t Matter to Americans

by Devon Williams,
associate editor
citizenlink.com

On the Senate floor today, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., claimed the issue of judicial nominees doesn’t matter to Americans.

“I’m telling you, Madam President, I can't ever remember going home and somebody saying, ‘Could you guys (confirm) some more judges? We need to take care of this judges problem.’ ” Reid said. “Frankly, judge(s) is not a big issue (compared) to all of the other problems we're facing in America.”

Tom McClusky, vice president for government affairs at the Family Research Council, said America’s problems are exactly why judicial confirmations are necessary.

“If the life issue’s important, if economic issues are important, if national security issues are important, Congress has given their power over to the judiciary,” he said. “No matter what your issue that’s true to your heart, judges, one way or the other, are the ones making the decisions.”

Like most stupid people, Harry Reid is arrogant to the point of being narcissistic. He lobs insults because he is intellectually incapable of carrying the debate based on the facts. He is disingenuous in his agreements, affected in his manner, and willingly lies to advance his socialist agenda.

The man openly expresses contempt for the electorate in his claim that the American people don't care about judicial appointments. For an American Senator to express such open contempt for the people who pay his paycheck is disgusting and should be the basis for censure at the very least.

Mr. Reid, if you are right about American voters not being intelligent enough to understand the importance of judicial nominations, then by direct corollary, they are also not intelligent enough to cast votes for who should be elected to office. So I guess you think that doing away with the vote is a goal toward which the government should strive.

I'm certain that you would be much happier with a Left-wing dictatorship...maybe with you in charge? Maybe you would like to model it after your dear departed Soviet Union.

Americans can vote and must vote...but you'll give them only one candidate to vote for. That is Harry Reid's and the Democrat Party's vision for America.


Not very cool dude. I thought Democrats were supposed to be for the people, not over the people...of course this article discusses the real world, not a fantasy world.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Friday, July 18, 2008

On "Burnishing" One's Credentials alá Barack Obama, the Best Dead-pan Joke of the Year

Speaking of political jokes, I've just gotta laugh at this one...

Barack Obama, a politician with no foreign policy experience and very little experience at all beyond local Chicago Machine politics, is going on a whirlwind trip across the Middle East and Europe, beginning with a short stay in Afghanistan and perhaps Iraq, then back like a rocket to America, in an effort to "burnish his foreign policy and national security credentials."

If Obama's knowledge of national security and foreign policy is so shallow that he believes a one week tour on the international "chicken circuit" will turn him into an expert in conducting foreign policy, then he is patently unprepared for the responsibilities of the office of President of the United States of America.

I'm not certain I would brag about "burnishing" or "bolstering" my foreign policy and national security credentials if the only experience I had was a one-week whirl-wind tour of Afghanistan, Israel and Western Europe.

For Obama to claim that this trip burnishes his foreign policy credentials is like him visiting a hospital to get his picture taken with a bunch of doctors and then proclaiming himself ready to perform brain surgery.

I don't doubt he feels the need to do something to shore up his credentials as a possible World Leader considering his complete lack of qualifications for the office he seeks, but traveling to the Middle East to suck up to Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas, then to Europe to suck up to the Germans and the French, will only emphasize just how inexperienced he is.

It looks more like a glorified photo-op for him with world leaders and the troops so he can cut more deceptive advertisements portraying him as being. Obama is banking on attracting large crowds of screaming European supporters to make him appear qualified to serve as president.

Such crowds might qualify him as a rock-star or a movie-star, but it does nothing to legitimize his candidacy. Too bad for him those European crowds can't vote (good for us though, look at the mess they've made of their own countries).

This election presents the most clear-cut case of experience vs. inexperience America has faced in over a century. Among all of their possible nominees for President Democrats had to choose from, Barack Obama was and is the least qualified to sit in the White House.

There is nothing in his background to qualify him for the Presidency.
  • He's never run a large organization, in fact he has no managerial experience whatsoever.

  • He's never served in the military and has, for the most part worked in direct opposition to our national security needs.

  • He has no foreign policy experience.

  • He has virtually no legislative experience.
To put Barack Obama's experience into perspective, the much maligned and derided by the Left and Democrats, James Danforth Quayle had served two terms (4 years) in the House of Representatives and was well into his second term (8 years) in the Senate before being tapped by George H. W. Bush to be his vice-presidential nominee.

In spite of his 12 years of national political experience, Dan Quayle was universally condemned by Democrats and the Liberal media as lacking sufficient experience to serve as Vice President of the United States of America. If Dan Quayle was under-qualified to serve as Vice President, what does that make Barack Obama, a joke?

As the Junior Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama has the distinction of having served only slightly more than 2 years in the senate before he formed his presidential campaign's exploratory committee. Democrats must have one heck of a sense of humor to put forward this less than stellar talent as their best and brightest.

His inexperience shows every time he "refines" his stand on key issues facing the American people. It has led to some interesting self-contradictory statements as he has tried to placate his extreme Left-wing base while portraying himself as a mainstream politician.

This vacillation is largely a product of the inconsistency of his outwardly proclaimed "moderate" stand on issues with the extreme Left-wing nature of his core beliefs. It gets very difficult after a time to remember what lies you have told and to attempt to remain consistent in your statements.

In playing to the Middle, Barack has had to abandon every one of his fundamental anti-war, anti-military, and anti-capitalist beliefs.

You can't make a silk purse out a sow's ear, but Democrats and the mainstream media are trying. This will be the most covered non-event in this election cycle and the press is planning to play up Obama's trip as giving him legitimacy in matters of national security and foreign policy.

Make believe president is a dangerous game for America to be playing during this time of continued terrorist threats both hear at home and abroad.

John McCain may be the worst choice for president Republicans could have made this year, but compared to Obama, he is far more knowledgeable on the most important matters a president might have to face and he is the only remaining candidate qualified to occupy the White House.

Barack Hussein Obama is not the most difficult politician to lampoon, Liberal comedians' claims to the contrary notwithstanding, his very candidacy is a joke.

If American wants to elect a "black president," there are many far more qualified politicians available in both parties than Mr. Obama. That Democrats have chosen Barack Obama to carry their banner, says a lot about what they think of the American electorate.

Obama is the definition of superficiality in a candidate. A glib tongue, slick patter, and good looks, are not the qualifications for which I look in selecting a president. If the Liberal media spent one-tenth the effort in examining Barack Obama's candidacy that it did in attacking Dan Quayle, Obama would be back in the senate casting appallingly Liberal votes in support of more governmental control of American's lives...come to think of it, perhaps it's a good thing that he has spent so little time pursuing his senatorial obligations.

Barack Obama may be the best answer Democrats have, but one must wonder what question was asked of them...maybe it was a challenge to Democrat Party leaders..."Who do you think is the most unqualified person we could run for the presidency?"

Long Live Our American Republic!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Do Nothing Democrats Use Personal Attack Against President Bush to Cover Own Incompetence

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have much in common, both are Majority Party Leaders in the most undistinguished congress in three decades, both are out of touch with the average American citizen when it comes to dealing with the energy crisis, and both are prone to use personal attack against President Bush in a pitiful and contemptible attempt to divert attention from their own abysmal records.

Pelosi revealed how little class she has during an interview recorded for CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.

Pelosi: Bush 'a total failure'

By Alexander Mooney
CNN

CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called President Bush "a total failure" on Thursday, among the California Democrat's harshest assessments to date of the president.

"God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States -- a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject," Pelosi told CNN's Wolf Blitzer in an exclusive interview.

The comments came two days after the president sharply criticized Congress over what he described as relative inaction over the course of the legislative term. At the White House on Wednesday, Bush noted that there were only 26 legislative days left in the fiscal year and said Congress would need to pass a spending bill every other day to "get their fundamental job done."

"This is not a record to be proud of, and I think the American people deserve better," Bush said.
Such a classy lady and so very wrong on so many issues. During her tenure as Speaker of the House, Congress has had less success and is less popular (Approve of Congress - 14%, Disapprove of Congress - 75%) than at any time in the 30 years that Gallop has been polling on Americans' opinion of Congress.

So Congress has failed to pass any legislation of significance since Democrats took over in 2006 and she calls President Bush a "failure?" President Bush's approval rating, at 28% is twice that of the Pelosi/Reid congress.

With Pelosi's comments, Democrats have hit a new low, both in the polls and in their behavior.

Well it is typical of Liberals to engage in personal attack when they are faced with their own failings, so I am not at all surprised that Pelosi would do so when confronted with her own absurd record.

Democrats have so much class...Last month Harry Reid said of President Bush:

"Who would be afraid of him? He's got a 29% approval rating."
This kind of public display of personal animosity and vitriol is almost unheard of among our political leaders and it demonstrates how much in denial Democrat Party leaders are. When Harry Reid made that statement, Congressional approval already trailed the President's by 10 points, at 18%.

This month, with Speaker Pelosi taking a hand in personal attack,
the President still sits at 31% and Congress has fallen to 14%, a new record for Gallop.

With Congress spending the past 18 months on what has been essentially a taxpayer funded vacation, failing even to get the 12 budget bills passed as required by law, it is not surprising that they would be anxious to cover-up their pathetic record by personally attacking President Bush.

House Minority Leader, John Boehner has been relentlessly attacking the Democrat leadership on their refusal to allow even a vote on lifting the Congressional ban on exploring the Outer Continental Shelf for oil...at last.

Would that more Republicans got hold of their manhood and did the same.

Democrats are using name calling and lies in an attempt to camouflage their own incompetence and Republicans are, for the most part, simply playing into their hands by refusing to attack them on their failures.

As Dana Perino said, "this is the longest in 20 years that congress has gone without passing a spending bill."

Democrats are vulnerable in their complete failure to accomplish anything in congress, all that is required of Republicans is to step up to the plate and hammer Democrats failure home to the American voters and Democrats will fall flat in November.

Time is running out for Republicans. If they all choose to "play nice" with Democrats the way John McCain is attempting to do against Obama, they will be relegated to super-minority status, and they will have no influence on legislation in the future.

This election is still the best game in town for entertainment. The only thing more ridiculous than the Republicans inability to fight back is watching Democrats self-destruct right before the public's eyes.

I don't know about Pelosi, but if I were running for congress with her record, I would not be so glib in my personal attacks. They have a nasty way of coming back to haunt you.

If I were running for congress as a Democrat, I would keep as far away from the Party leaders as I could. Nothing so tarnishes a newcomer to congress as being closely associated with failure and that is all the Democrats have to show for their tenure in congress.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!
To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

For Pelosi/Reid, Politics Trumps Sound Energy Policy

What we are calling an "Energy Crisis" is actually a cost of living crisis. The only thing "critical" about our energy supply is the cost per unit to the American consumer. No one is unable to buy gasoline or home heating oil, or even bunker fuel, because it is just unavailable. The problems arise because of the impact that increased demand has had on the price of energy to the American consumer.

With Americans now paying over $4.00/gal. for gasoline, and oil at $140/bbl. Democrats, like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, believe they have hit on the perfect solution to our energy crisis...sloganeering.

My personal favorite is "We can't drill our way out of the energy crisis." Now I don't know about you, but the reasoning (if you can call it that) behind this claim escapes me completely.

From the International Herald Tribune we hear Pelosi's words of "wisdom:"


Pelosi stands firm against offshore drilling

By Carl Hulse
Published: July 17, 2008

WASHINGTON: Upon entering Congress in 1987, Representative Nancy Pelosi quickly became part of the solid California front against oil drilling along much of the nation's coast.

The 1969 Santa Barbara oil spill and the steady push to tap the potential reserves off the state's rugged coast had galvanized Californians and made opposition to offshore drilling part of the political DNA of up-and-coming figures like Pelosi.

She repeatedly resisted oil drilling in marine sanctuaries off the state's coast near her San Francisco district and, after joining the Appropriations Committee, was an advocate of reinstating the coastal drilling ban through spending restrictions each year.

"We learned the hard way that oil and water do not mix on our coast," Pelosi told a key committee in 1996 as she made her case for keeping the ban in place before a Congress then controlled by Republicans.
Carl Hulse goes on to quote Madame Speaker Pelosi:

"The president of the United States, with gas at $4 a gallon because of his failed energy policies, is now trying to say that is because I couldn't drill offshore. That is not the cause, and I am not going to let him get away with it."
The Democrat solution to this problem is to chant repeatedly the mantra, "We can't drill our way out of the energy crisis," to accuse the Bush Administration of having "failed energy policies" and to tell Americans that we must endure the shared sacrifices of a more modest life-style.

Pelosi's assertion to the contrary notwithstanding, the high price of oil and thus of gasoline is strictly a manifestation of supply and demand.

World crude oil production is running about
85 Million bbl/day. Demand for oil in 2008 has reached about 88 Million bbl/day.

Do the math. Worldwide demand for crude oil exceeds the supply by 3 Million bbl/day. When supplies are outstripped by demand, prices rise.

This is simple, straight-forward logic and the resultant corollary is, if you increase the supply of crude oil by increased domestic drilling, crude prices will fall and gasoline prices will moderate.

What Pelosi and Reid won't tell you is Democrats like high energy prices. They see them as a means to their political and social ends; forced conservation of energy through high cost, forced reductions in "greenhouse gas" emissions to abate "anthropogenic global warming," and increased government control of private industry.

Blaming "Big Oil" and President Bush for a problem largely created by the federal government and the Left's unrelenting assault on our free-market society will not solve the current crisis.

The Democrat's demagoguery of attacking "Big Oil" for being "greedy" while collecting twice as much in taxes from a gallon of gasoline as the oil companies earn in profits, is not only hypocritical, but contributes nothing to solving the problem.

According to the
E.I.A., the federal gasoline tax is 18.4 cpg. State taxes account for an average of another 21.4 cpg. So total taxes on that $4.00 gallon of gasoline are roughly 40 cpg. That's 10% of t he cost of a gallon of gasoline. Another 73% of the cost of comes from the cost of crude oil.

Contributing to our high energy costs is a lack of refining capacity. We have not built any new refineries in over 30 years.

Domestic refining capacity is maxed out at just over 17 Million bbls/day, a figure which has not changed substantially in over 25 years. According to the
Energy Information Administration (EIA), a division of the Department of Energy (D.O.E.), in 1982, U.S. refining capacity stood at 17,618,872 bbl/day, by 2002 capacity had shrunk slightly to 17,177,371 bbl/day. In 2007, again according to E.I.A. data, domestic refining capacity still sat at only 17,443,492 bbl/day.

The primary reason for this refining capacity stagnation is the inability of oil companies to get permits to build new refineries.

The red-tape imposed by our federal government through expansive (and excessive) environmental regulations and rulings by the Environmental Protection Agency combined with (local) government interests and the "not in our back yard" mentality of civic interests have made permitting for a new refinery almost impossible.


So America, if you don't like paying $4.00+/gal for gasoline:
  • Tell Democrats (and RINO's) to stop blocking domestic exploration for oil in "protected areas" like the outer continental shelf.
  • Demand that congress pass legislation which streamlines regulations and enables oil companies to build more refineries.
  • Pressure state legislatures in Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming to allow the big oil companies to exploit our national oil shale reserves which, at an estimated 1.8 Trillion bbl., dwarfs the entire world's proven crude oil reserves.

Supply and demand is a simple and effective system. Increase the supply of the commodity which consumers demand, and prices will decrease. The system has worked throughout history and it will work today.

The less government interferes with private enterprise, the better off we all would be. A free market leads to a free people.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF statement on the Public Utility Commission's approval of new wind transmission lines

“While the development of renewable energy resources is generally a good thing, we can’t hide from its high costs. Building the transmission capacity to carry energy from West Texas and the Panhandle to East Texas will be tremendously expensive.


“The costs of building those new transmission lines should be borne by the companies who develop the wind and solar farms, as well as the consumers who purchase that energy. They should not be socialized across every ratepayer on the ERCOT grid.


“Because the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow all the time, additional renewable energy must be backed up with even more natural gas power plants. Texas’ overreliance on natural gas for electricity has driven up the demand and price of natural gas, and is a main factor in why Texas’ electricity rates have surged this year.”


– 30 –


The Texas Public Policy Foundation is a non-profit, free-market research institute based in Austin, Texas. The Foundation’s research on electricity and renewable energy is available on the Foundation’s website, www.TexasPolicy.com.

Labels: , , , , ,

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

TPPF COMMENTARY: Unrealistic Energy Policies Harm Consumers