This week was a busy one, with budgets and speeches about budgets and counter budgets taking up a lot of bandwidth in D.C.
Here’s your weekly edition of Email, Hatemail and Comments from Readers:
Killer wrote: “You have no idea where America is on her journey. Your modern mind has no reality in a "Post Modern World". Keep playing with your future and that of this country. Being physically and mentally inferior, you have assumed a position with the "Hope" of value. "The Crystallization of Modern Failures" has been taking place for over 30 years. You sir, don't even know what that means?” in response to my column Obama's Time-Limited, Scope-Limited, Kinetic Presidency
You’re right I don’t know what that means. No one knows what that means, except maybe Jared Loughner.
Actually, your comments kind of remind me of lampoons of old-time Chinese Communists trying to reeducate POWs during the Korean War.
Or is the war still called the Korean Police Action? Maybe we should all agree to call it the Korean Oversea Contingency Operation. Or better yet, the Korean Kinetic Military action. How about Time-Limited, Scope-Limited Humanitarian Assistant Effort Led By NATO, But Certainly Not The United States, Because…?
Come to think of it, maybe Obama knows what you are talking about too.
Arley wrote: “Obama's speech was the most inept, lame, uniformed attempt I've seen in a long time. There was no clarity, no plan, and he reverted to the old Democrat mantra of "Tax the Rich More" as a solution to our debt crisis. Didn't have anything productive to say about spending reduction, which is the driving force of our problems today in this country.”- in response to Larry Kudlow’s column Tax and Debt Bomb
That’s because Democrats can’t stop spending. There isn’t a problem in the world that doesn’t involve a multi-billion dollar budget when a Democrat gets involved.
Obama’s speech was inept and lame, but was it really more inept and lamer than his attempt to cut our dependence on foreign oil by giving a speech? Was it more inept than the speech he gave where he claimed we were not at war in Libya and which was billed as an explanation for the “war in Libya?”
Was it more inept than inviting GOP Budget Chair Paul Ryan to sit in the front row of the president’s budget speech and then insult Ryan?
Expect the GOP to pass Ryan’s budget proposal next week as a kind of middle finger salute to O.
Bojangles wrote: “If only the Republicans had a real candidate to run against Obama. I can't seem to think of one can you Blair? Any sane Republican wouldn't want to run in 2012; too many crazies to appease (can you say birthers, and Christian fundamentalists), just to name a few.”- in response to Democrats' High-Definition Defeat
Hate to break your progressive heart but if someone ever wanted to be president of the United States, 2012 would be the perfect time to run. That’s why so many conservatives have made overtures.
Let’s take a look at a list:
Rand or Ron Paul
That’s a pretty big field of diverse, accomplished candidates. And there have been other name talked about too. We’ll see the field expand. There is little downside to running against Obama for a Republican candidate. A goods showing can only help even if they lose.
While I don’t think Obama will be challenged by anyone in his own party for the nomination, it wouldn’t be a total surprise.
Lon wrote: “What is funny is that Ransom seems to take the claim that the US was founded by white people for white people as if it is a controversial claim.” in response to my column A State Sponsored Racist
The U.S. was founded on universal principles of liberty, not differences in skin color.
That’s why since our founding the country has struggled and fought and worked to create a society where skin color doesn’t matter. Sure, we’ve not been perfect. But our founding principles, which are neither white nor black, tell us that liberty must be color blind.
Progressives, however, have decided that the only thing that matters is skin color; or gender; or national origin, all in a quest for an impossible equality of outcomes.
The only thing that we can really make equal for everyone is liberty.
If we do that, the rest will take care of itself.
Zen wrote: “John Ransom is wrong. The Tea Party did not broker the current spending cuts. Nor did President Obama retreat. He looks like the grown up here who would rather go along with minimal spending cuts to prevent wrecking the economy and shutting down the government.” in response to my column Tea Party Brokers Budget While Obama Retreats
Harry Reid spent a week talking about nothing but the Tea Party and Boehner went out of his way to consult the Tea Party caucus in Congress because they don’t count.
Here’s what liberal columnist Michael Tomasky had to say about Obama’s approach to the budget: “This passivity is kind of stunning to me, and I think it's losing him ground in the polls, where he's dropped a bit this past month.”
Here’s what Democrat Charles Rangel said about the deal in the NY Daily News: "’What [Obama has] done politically does not fit what I think should be done morally,’" said Rep. Charles Rangel (D-Harlem), who signaled plans to vote against the budget this week. "’My community got a lousy deal in view of the resources that this great nation has.’"
Here’s what the Daily Worker, er, Kos had to say: “[C]ommentators normally broadly supportive of the White House have noted the terrible optics of this arrangement, even as much of the progressive movement recoiled in some mixture of the shock and horror that one might find at the discovery that a spouse one had suspected of straying, had not only been unfaithful but actually moonlighted in the professional escort industry.”
If you are a progressive, you got hosed by Obama.
Does that make them hosers now?
Wiseone wrote:“Since you're discussing the way the issue is to be framed, let's get it right from the beginning. Let's start by saying that an individual's money belongs to him, not the government, and he doesn't have to justify keeping it from the government. That means it doesn't matter whether he earned with back-breaking labor, by investing wisely, inheriting it, or winning the lottery.” - Finally, A Socialist Budget
You are wise.
You can’t have freedom if the government can confiscate what you have legitimately earned and then give it to someone else.
Imagine if I walked into a White House state dinner, went up to Obama and took a big fork full of food right off his plate, saying “Hey. I’m hungry.”
That’s exactly what Democrats are proposing.
It’s not just rude; it’s wrong.
Thomas wrote: “Herman Cain is the one bright spot in an otherwise undistinguished Republican field. We need to see and hear a lot more from him. But so far I detect nothing RINO about him.” Herman Cain Bets On Main Street
I like Herman Cain. But I disagree with you about the field being undistinguished. I think we have a great group of leaders with more emerging. Would I want every one of them to represent me in Congress? No. But they all have something to add to the presidential debate. In the end, I expect the GOP will have an excellent candidate.
Thanks readers, especially the ones I disagree with.
We’ll convert you yet.
For the rest of you: Keep it conservative. And thanks for doing the hard work of freedom.