Welfare Nirvana!

This is what your tax dollars are paying for in Tacoma, Washington. Unbelievable!

"You'll have to ask her..."

In a surreal turn of events, the White House press corps grilled Jay Carney about the prospects of Hillary Clinton mounting a primary challenge against Barack Obama. Courtesy of RealClearPolitics (they also have video of the exchange):

At yesterday's White House press briefing WorldNetDaily White House correspondent Lester Kinsolving asked Jay Carney if President Obama is "certain" that Hillary Clinton won't primary him. This comes after Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) said Obama has moved to the right because he has no primary opponent.

Carney said the White House is pretty certain Clinton won't challenge Obama, however he tells Kinsolving "you'll have to ask her." Transcript of the exchange:

Lester Kinsolving: "Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders said, and this is a quote, "one of the reasons the president has moved so far to the right is there is no primary opposition to him." And my question: Why is the president certain Hillary won't run against him?"

Jay Carney: "You win the award for originality today."

Kinsolving: "Thank you very much."

Carney: "The president is focused not on any election, he's focused right now on doing his job to grow the economy, create jobs, ensure Americans who are in the path of this hurricane are taken care of.

Kinsolving: "I understand. Why are you running away from this question? Can you guarantee, I mean, are you sure Hillary is not going to run."

Carney: "You'll have to ask her. We're fairly confident -- that we need to focus on the task at hand."

What I find amazing is that the press asks the White House about whether or not Barack Obama has moved the the right due to no primary opposition. What?

In addition, they've already asked Sarah Palin over and over again about what her intentions are. Why not ask Jay Carney about a Sarah Palin run? Even more, why don't they pester the dickens out of Hillary Clinton as to what her plans are? This is truly becoming theater of the absurd!

Cross-posted from Roderic Deane

In case you've forgotten...

Sarah truly speaks the Tea Party's language, but never crosses the line to suggest that she leads it. This is a lesson to be learned. We do NOT want politicians to lay claim to a movement that might support their agenda. We want politicians that will ENDORSE our beliefs and CHAMPION them as an adjunct to their own. They should NEVER lay claim to speaking FOR us. They should only lay claim to speaking on behalf of our beliefs.



Cross-posted from Roderic Deane

A Palin for the ages....

I've been totally absorbed in the task of bringing a new website online. I've done nothing over the last several weeks but deal with WordPress, html, site-hosting and DNS settings. It's enough to make your head spin!

Thankfully, I'm almost done. I'll announce the "go-live" nature of my new blogsite on The Roderic Deane Show. Hopefully, that announcement will come this Sunday.

In the meantime, I've been listening to the pulse of the Palin blogosphere. I've been intrigued by what I've heard. As recently as this morning, the FoxNews morning show alluded to a major announcement from Sarah Palin at her September 3rd speech to the Iowa Tea Party. The FoxNews crew dropped that bomb and then ignored it for the remainder of the show. Hmmmm.

No one can or should predict Sarah's mindset. Hell, I love the fact that she has one that doesn't play ball with those in the lamestream media. Karl Rove and company can play whatever games they feel necessary, but for me, I really don't care. I know that Sarah will do the right thing and whatever that "thing" is, I will welcome and applaud it!

You see, I'm not totally invested in the fact that Sarah HAS to run for President. What I am invested in is the future of our country. If Sarah decides that a presidential run is not to her liking, so be it. I'll accept that fact and move on. What I would like, however, is an understanding that she'll still be amongst us to encourage a course of action that we can all rally around.

In my heart, however, I hope she leads from the front as an announced candidate. I could REALLY rally around that!

Cross-posted from Roderic Deane

Is Stacy McCain losing it?

First off, let me tell you that I like Stacy McCain. His "The Other McCain" blog is very informative and entertaining. I've contributed to his "shoe-leather" fund on a number of occasions. But I am completely confused by his recent rant about not having access to what he calls "Team Sarah". I presume he means Sarah's inner circle. In a recent post, he wrote this:

I’m feeling like a mushroom here. IYKWIMAITYD.

UPDATE III: Dan Riehl rushes to join the Worldwide Universal Association of People Smarter Than Stacy McCain:

Whatever Palin is doing by way of preparation for a run is not what one is accustomed to seeing. Stacy is looking for the expected, not seeing it and concluding it’s too late for her. I’m looking at what I know and don’t know, while leaving a little room for what I don’t know I don’t know and concluding she’s running. Simple, isn’t it?

When I talked to Dan by phone a few minutes ago, he said, “Stacy don’t take it personally.” But when I am insulted — and to be purposefully excluded is to be insulted — it would compound my humiliation not to take notice of the insult.

Bear in mind that the people on Team Sarah have my phone number and e-mail address, and I know they read this blog. It wasn’t exactly a secret that I was in Iowa last week, and it was possible for them to let me know their itinerary. Instead, as always, they allow other news organizations — including liberal news organizations inimicable to their own interests — break exclusive news about their Iowa trip, while purposefully keeping me out of the loop. And when I dare take notice of these unsubtle backhands, I’m accused of being “too sensitive.”

When I want to make a fool out of myself, I don’t usually ask for help in doing so, and appreciate all this volunteer assistance from Team Sarah.

Okay, this started out as one of Stacy's articles on The American Spectator.

What I took exception to was the headline of his blog piece: Blogging About Pathetic Perverts and Also Andrew Sullivan’s Sarah Palin Toe Fetish. This was a blatant attempt to put Sarah in a headline that was very demeaning and I wrote Stacy to tell him about it.

So, what happened in the meantime? Well, Dan Riehl responded in a post on his blog titled Stacy McCain Declares, Palin Not Running. In the post, Dan says this:

He is correct as to my being as, if not more cynical than anyone. Hmm So, if that's true, how can I be urging her to run when, in his, evidently, unique genius, Stacy knows it's obviously already too late for her to do so? See, in essence, he is calling me a Palinista, that, or simply dumb. I suspect he didn't realize that when he wrote it. Which is it, Stacy, am I dumb, or obsessed, ... inquiring minds want to know? ; )

My friend Dan Riehl seems to think otherwise — his post “Why Sarah Palin Needs To Run For President In 2012”was also re-Tweeted by Iowa for Palin — andit would be hard to conceive that I (or anyone else) could be more cynical about politics than Dan Riehl. Yet if there is any urge I find irresistible, it is my urge to avoid being a chump, a True Believer living on irrational hopes and dreams.

Now, Stacy could have worked the logic the other way and done what reporters usually do, pick up the phone. "Dan, you're as cynical as anyone I know, how can you possibly believe she will run?" Alas, the poor young man didn't do that, now did he?

Oops, there's the phone now. Great, I can tell Stacy a thing, or two first hand. Be right back.

I'm back. Yes, Stacy did call ... in response to a Tweet of mine, I gather. The wrong question referred to below is the one I mentioned just above. If I'm so cynical, why do I think as I do regarding Palin and a possible run?

@jimmiebjr a gd post, y? Looks lk link bait. @rsmccain 's asking the wrong Qstion, gets the wrong answer, as Xpctd. ; ) is.gd/6FrzX5

Of some relatively small number of people in politics I genuinely admire, Donald Rumsfeld is one of them. I think I'll wrap this up with a little Rumsfeldian logic for now.

[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.

I, too, have my unknown unknowns on this topic. So, as with any potential candidate, until Sarah Palin comes out publically and makes it clear one way, or the other, for all anyone can know, she may not run. I'd be surprised, but it is possible. However, based upon what I do know and what I know I don't know, the only conclusion I can reach is, she's running.

Good Grief! I knew that Sarah was driving the lamestream media crazy, but I never thought the right-wing blogosphere (of which I consider myself a member) would go crazy as well!

Cross-posted from Roderic Deane

Tea Party members confront Obama

This is great! It's about time that people start calling out Obama for his rhetoric and those of his administration and party.

Ryan Rhodes has now been interviewed on air by Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin. Here is Sean Hannity's take on FoxNews:



Here is the raw video:



For the record, the lamestream media is referring to Ryan Rhodes as a heckler, although it seems like all he did was pose a question to Obama, however uncomfortable the question may have been for "The One".

What to make of waiting...

I've searched through my brain to determine why it is so important to so many that Sarah Palin announces a Presidential bid this month or next. Okay, my brain didn't tell me what I wanted to hear, so I did some research.

What follows is the date that the last 50 years' worth of Presidential candidates announced their intention to pursue their party's nomination (not a complete list):

John F. Kennedy (D-MA) - January 2, 1960
Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) - January 3, 1964
George Romney (R-MI) - November 18, 1967
Richard M. Nixon (R-CA) - January 31, 1968
Robert F. Kennedy (D-MA) - March 16, 1968
Hubert Humphrey (D-MN) - April 27, 1968
Senator George McGovern (D-SD) - January 18, 1971
Hubert H. Humphrey (D-MN) - January 10, 1972
Jimmy Carter (D-GA) - December 12, 1974 (a very early bird)
Gerald R. Ford (D-MI) - July 8, 1975
George Bush (R-TX) - May 1, 1979
Bob Dole (R-KS) - May 14, 1979
Howard Baker (R-TN) - November 1, 1979
Ronald Reagan (R-CA) - November 13, 1979
Gary Hart (D-CO) - February 17, 1983
Walter Mondale (D-MN) February 21, 1983
John Glenn (D-OH) - April 21, 1983
Michael Dukakis (D-MA) -
Joe Biden (D-RI) - June 8, 1987
Bob Dole (R-KS) - November 8, 1987
Bob Kerrey (D-NE) - September 30, 1991
Bill Clinton (D-AR) - October 3, 1991
Pat Buchanan (R-DC) - December 10, 1991
Pat Buchanan (R-DC) - March 20, 1995
Bob Dole (R-KS) - April 10, 1995
Richard Lugar (R-IN) - April 19, 1995
Stephen Forbes (R-NY) - September 22, 1995
Steve Forbes (R-NY) - March 16, 1999
George W. Bush (R-TX) - June 12, 1999
Al Gore (R-TN) - June 16, 1999
Howard Dean (D-VT) - June 23, 2003
John Kerry (D-MA) - September 2, 2003
John Edwards (D-NC) - September 16, 2003
Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - January 20, 2007 (Exploratory committee announcement)
Barack Obama (D-IL) - February 10, 2007
John McCain (R-AZ) - April 25, 2007

There you have it. A sample of announcement dates. As recently as Bill Clinton's historic run to the Presidency, he didn't announce until October.

I think Sarah Palin can afford to wait.

Cross-posted from Roderic Deane.

CNN thanks Sarah Palin for her candor

I normally wouldn't even consider posting a CNN video, but this one is worthwhile and quite telling in comparing Michelle Bachmann and Sarah Palin's response to media.



Cross-posted from Roderic Deane

Rollercoaster Ho-Hum

Here is my opening monologue from today's The Roderic Deane Show.

The title for today’s show is “Rollercoaster Ho-Hum”. It comes from two observations I had of last week’s events. The first relates to Wall Street and the New York Stock Exchange. I was prepared to see a gloomy Monday and predicted that the DOW would not react well to Standard and Poor’s debt downgrade from Friday after the markets closed. Man, I was right on that one as the DOW dropped almost 635 points. I can’t begin to understand what happened over the rest of the week. On Tuesday it was up 430, on Wednesday, down 520, Thursday, up 423 and on Friday it was up again, 126 points. If that ain’t the definition of a rollercoaster ride, I don’t know what is.

A Friday article by Kate Gibson from The Wall Street Journal’s Market Watch had this to say:

U.S. stocks dialed back on [early] Friday gains after a [report was published that showed a] gauge of consumer confidence illustrated a sharp fall in sentiment early this month, curbing enthusiasm that came with an encouraging report on the nation’s retail sales.

The University of Michigan/Thomson Reuters index of consumer sentiment dropped to 54.9 in August — the lowest in 31 years.

The preliminary figure “mostly captures the craziness of the week and certainly the week before as the survey likely ended this Wednesday,” [blah, blah, blah].

In other words, just when the markets begin to gain a little traction, some other bad news comes out and rattles the market again. But let’s take another look at that index of consumer sentiment. “The lowest in 31 years”! Let’s see, that would take us back to who’s presidency? You guessed it: Jimmy Carter. Coincidence? I think not.

I’ve long believed that the present economic environment could only be compared to the economy during the Carter years from the perspective of my lifetime, but keep one thing in mind. Carter hit that low point 51.7 in his 4th year. Barack Obama has managed to pull it off in his 3rd. And the news just isn’t getting better.

Of course, we are constantly told by Obama himself that he inherited the worst economy since the Great Depression. Although he may have inherited a lousy economy, he sure hasn’t helped it in any way. Consider this: at this same point in Reagan’s first term, the consumer confidence index had risen to 90.9. It remained above 90 for the remainder of Reagan’s time in office, with the exception of just a handful of months.

Now, let’s look at something different. Carter inherited a consumer confidence index of 87.1, Reagan inherited 66.9 and Barack Obama 56.3. So, three years into their presidencies, Carter saw a 26% decline in consumer confidence, Reagan saw a 36% increase and Obama has remained fairly steady with a 2% decline.

I’ll provide a link to the historical data on my blog.

Now for the Ho-Hum part. The announced Republican candidates squared off in a debate in Ames, Iowa last Thursday night. I didn’t watch it, because I was totally absorbed in configuring a new website. I’ll tell you more about the new website when I’m ready. As for the Ames debate, I was underwhelmed by the reports I read after it ended. I posted my impressions on my blog and forwarded that blog post to Conservatives4Palin. The next morning, I saw that Nicole Coulter had written C4P’s immediate reaction to the debate in a post titled “My Ridiculous Summary of the Fox News GOP Debate From Iowa”. As I read her post, to my surprise, she had included my entire post in hers! Good Grief, I was just hoping that C4P would consider my post as a reader submission.

You can read what I posted here.

Friends, the campaign season is just beginning. Enjoy the ride. It should be a good one!

...and that my two-cents worth for the week.

Featured items:

Historical trends of the Consumer Confidence Index

Iowa Straw Poll results, from Hot Air

Rick Perry's announcement in South Carolina, from PalinTV

Cross-posted on Roderic Deane.

Straw Poll, Short Stroll

So, the results of the Iowa Straw Poll are in! What did they tell us? In one word: NOTHING!

How Ron Paul can continue to stack these polls is amazing to me. Here's a guy (albeit from my home state of Texas) that doesn't have a chance to win the nomination. His past history has suggested that he puts all his eggs into one basket, the Iowa Straw Poll. Yeah!

Moving down amongst the so-called "other rans", we see Michelle Bachmann shoring up her position in second place. Again, good press for a few days, but hardly meaningful. She has an awful long way to go to achieve front-runner status. The Ames Straw Poll is hardly the stuff of legend. I don't think ANY eventual Republican nominee has won it. It's merely a traditional fund-raiser for the town of Ames and, well, more power to them for that!

Nope, we have to look beyond the Ames Straw Poll and examine the other things going on.

Join me on "The Roderic Deane Show" tomorrow at noon Eastern time. I'll fill you in on everything that transpired today and last week. I'll boil in down into an easily understood discussion that cuts to the chase!

Lord knows that Ivan (my call-screener) needs bullet points. I aim to please!

It's a short stroll to irrelevancy and we'll soon find out who took that walk.

Crossposted on Roderic Deane

My impressions of the Iowa debate

What I found interesting about the Republican debate is what the "lamestream" media focused on. They didn't report on substantive policy disagreements, they focused on personality. Perhaps that's the only thing they know. After all, Barack Obama was elected on the basis of personality. Moreover, he was elected on his ability to plead for "hope and change".

What I saw of the debate in Iowa was a slate of candidates that were intent on saying "I'm the one that should lead you". What I didn't see was true, inspirational leadership as contrasted to Barack Obama. I saw more politicians fumbling their way to a rhetorical advantage over a rival.

What I didn't see was a clear articulation of the principles of our founding principles. I saw platitudes and posturing, none of which impressed me. It was almost as if our founding principles were "politically incorrect".

This field of Republican candidates is sorely lacking in the ability to convey a sense of resolve for the American public. I don't really care about who voted for what in Congress. I want to hear ideas that uplift our spirits.

I want to know that tomorrow is not the end of the world as we know it and I want to hear politicians say that, distinctly!

I want someone to say that we will transcend this present economic nightmare and do bigger and better things, because that is our history.

I want someone to tell me that all "hope" is not lost and that we can resurrect our economy and governing principles to guide us for many years to come. We have been and need to again be the leader of the world in our resolve to advance liberty.

I want to hear from Sarah Palin! She speaks about liberty and freedom in a way that appeals to me. She makes me feel good about our prospects for the future. She has a more uplifting message than anyone else in the Republican field. She make me look forward in anticipation of achievement.

My impressions from the Iowa Republican debate are cloaked in disappointment. I didn't see what I was hoping to. I pray that Sarah didn't as well.

Cross-posted on Roderic Deane

New contributor to the blog

I'd like to welcome Roderic Deane as a new contributor to Generational Dysfunction. I happened upon his blog way back when he just got started. He posted a Tweet that caught my attention. He has since started his own BlogTalkRadio show and has featured some of my favorite bloggers as guests on his show.

I look forward to his contributions on this blog and collaborating with him in our efforts to restore the blessings of liberty that our Founders envisioned for us!

Again, welcome RD!

Doorbell

Hat tip: Texans for Sarah Palin

Awaiting a Black Monday?

I'm not looking forward to Monday. With the news yesterday that Standard and Poor's lowered the long-term bond rating of U.S. debt for the first time since 1917, the markets may retreat further on the heels of their dismal performances last week.

We are beginning to hear calls for U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to resign. Expect those calls to increase exponentially over the next several days, culminating in his "removal/retirement" from public service. Let me state for the record that Timothy Geithner should be fired immediately. In a private or public company, this guy would have been canned many, many months ago for what was a totally predictable outcome of his pursued Keynesian policies. We expected him to offer sound advice to the administration, but, instead, he has been an absolute disgrace in the performance of his fiduciary duties and should be held accountable for this disastrous outcome. It didn't have to happen! Ultimately, however, we must hold Barack Obama accountable as well. It's called an election.

I also expect to see Barack Obama's approval ratings take a big hit next week. He can no longer hide behind the weak narrative of blaming Republicans and the Tea Party for his failed policies. I have no doubt that the administration will try to spin this in an attempt to insulate Obama, but I think that the charade is over.

We'll know soon enough. Check out Scott Rasmussen's Daily Presidential Tracking Poll and RealClearPolitics' President Obama Job Approval poll over the next few days. It should be quite telling.

I don't take solace in the failure of the Obama administration's policies for our economic woes. I pray that he wakes up and does what's right for the American people, reigning in his socialist agenda. Sadly, I just don't see that happening. To date, there has been little or no evidence to suggest it.

2012 can't come soon enough! In my lifetime, I have never witnessed a period of time that has brought us so close to a complete economic collapse as in I have in the last 3 years. The potential anarchy that could result in such a collapse would make the riots of the 1960's look like a picnic. We just have to hang on for dear life and adhere to the principles of our Constitution, electing politicians that will begin to end this nightmare.

Update: It's already starting to happen.

Operation Fast and Furious: Who ordered this fiasco?

I've been following the unfolding Congressional investigation into the ATF operation known as "Fast and Furious". There is a post by Bob Owens at Pajamas Media that provides some great insight into who may be responsible.

Now that the debt ceiling debate is over and done, let’s turn our attention back to Operation Fast and Furious and its alleged sister operations. The multi-agency operation (or operations) of the U.S. government allowed thousands of guns to be supplied to Mexican drug cartels, while American federal law enforcement effectively provided the straw purchasers and smugglers with the cover to operate with impunity.

Despite the tens of thousands of words of outrage written about the Obama administration’s botched Operation Fast and Furious, most of the focus has been on the horrific impact of the program as measured by the number of firearms smuggled over the border and the number of lives lost. Some attention has been consequently paid to the potential political and criminal impact of the operation and cover-up within the Department of Justice.

Sadly, the media has focused very little attention on the probable origins of the plot, or why Gunwalker was created as an adjunct of the longer-running and more successful Gunrunner campaign.

Of course, that may not be entirely true. The crack investigative reporters of print, network, and cable news organizations may very well have done the research and followed the various clues about the origins of Gunwalker to their logical conclusion, and then simply decided that the most probable story was one they not dare tell.

The story is this: no competent federal law enforcement officer would ever have concocted an operation as obviously doomed to catastrophic failure as Operation Fast and Furious.

[More]

If this does end up being a misguided political attempt to force gun restrictions, it's a far bigger scandal than Watergate, where no lives were lost. The blatant stone-walling by Justice Department officials toward Darrell Issa's Congressional inquiries is telling. EVERYTHING this administration does is politically motivated and, in this case, cost the life of one or our border patrol agents.