CHUCK DIETRICK'S POLI-NOMICS

Precious

Chuck Dietrick — Thu, 24 May 2012 03:25:21 GMT

Democrats are so precious.

When the country is heading south and they are at the wheel, stuff that’s forever been in their crosshairs suddenly doesn’t matter anymore. It’s all simply beyond anyone’s control.

Deficits. Inconsequential.

Debt. Irrelevant.

Oil and gas prices. Immaterial.

Unemployment. Inconvenient.

GDP. SchmeeDP.

And let’s not forget the big one…

Things will still be difficult post November no matter the President. That’s right. Our problems are just too monumental.

All this is supposed to convince us that Barry is blameless, now and in the future, and that we’re experiencing a “New Normal (i.e. permanent structural change).” The fallback excuse for all of Obama’s and the Dem’s policy failures.

Classic Democrat spin. Accountability is for other people. Suckers.

Yes, the same belief of ignorant, delusional, and historically unaware investors regarding stock bubbles is also subscribed to by the Democrat faithful. Things are different this time.

Well, guess what? They’re not.

The economy is not different. Newsflash: It still reacts to the same positive and negative stimuli.

Good policy begets good economy.

Obamanomics begets fiscal disaster.

Yeah, the President doesn’t matter.

And, it doesn’t matter if…

Your quarterback is Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf, or

Your CEO is Jack Welch or Ken Lay, or

Your Chef is Lagasse or Boyardee.

It just doesn’t matter.

Yeah, right.

Faux Pas At The Polls

Chuck Dietrick — Mon, 07 May 2012 05:12:18 GMT

Sarkozy and his Center-Right government are out. Francois Hollande and his “moderate” Socialist party are in.

In case you’re as perplexed by the “moderate” descriptor as I was, allow me to enlighten. It was only after examining Hollande’s platform that it became clear. You see, one of his planks is to tax those making over 1.3 million dollars at a 75% marginal rate. Were he not “moderate,” he’d actually want the entire 100%. Thank goodness for temperance.

Au revoir bourgeoisie. Bonne chance proletariat.

Bid adieu to whatever tax base France still had. Millionaires will be fleeing the country faster than the French army. Apparently Hollande didn’t see this movie when it first played in California, New York, and New Jersey.

Oh, and if that’s not enough to wreak fiscal havoc, Hollande also wants to roll back the retirement age for a good portion of the population to 60 from 62.

Vive la France!

They’re calling Hollande’s brand of socialism, free-market social democracy. Free-market? Interesting.

In his victory address, he stressed that more emphasis needs to be placed on economic stimulus, and that growth and unemployment would be given equal weight with balancing budgets.

Problem is, I'm guessing he sympathizes with that great free-market social democracy theorist, Nancy Pelosi, that nothing creates jobs like food stamps.

Who needs the Occupy movement when the Bastille has just been stormed and a 21^st century Robespierre is ready with a new Reign of (Economic) Terror?

God help the French.

If only they believed in a higher power.

Almost forgot; they do. Only his name is Jerry, not Jesus.

The next Jerry Lewis telethon…Live From The Champs-Elysees.

Let’s go to the tote board and see how much has been raised…

Throwing Stones

Chuck Dietrick — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:49:39 GMT

Over the last few weeks both government and the church have demonstrated, rather clumsily, why they should stay out of one another’s business.

First, it was President Obama’s ill-advised assault on the Catholic Church and its belief set regarding contraception. Not to be out done, the Chairman of the Catholic bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development waded into the economic policy debate by declaring that Republican Paul Ryan’s budget “fails to meet [the Church’s] moral criteria” because it doesn’t require “shared sacrifice.”

Fails to meet the Church’s moral criteria?

Talk about throwing stones in a glass chapel.

Big assertion from a representative of an organization that institutionally discriminates against gays and women.

And could his point about shared sacrifice be anymore off base?

It’s Ryan after all, more than virtually anyone else, who recognizes that the out of control spending that’s been inflicted upon us by government “hurt[s] the poor first and worst.” In fact, a stated goal for the budget is to “lift this crushing burden of debt, and repair our broken safety net.” Yes, the safety net about which Bishop Blaire is surprisingly so ignorant. Surprisingly because churches have been on the front lines of trying to lend a helping hand to the multitudes devastated by Obamanomics.

Does Bishop Blaire actually believe that a badly fraying safety net is going to withstand the weight of millions more people and tens of trillions more in obligations? Perhaps, instead of condemning Ryan, he should be lauding him as a champion of the truth—one with the moral courage and intellectual honesty to do something about a disaster in waiting that, if unattended, is going to wreak unprecedented devastation on society’s most vulnerable.

Then maybe the good Bishop can say a few Hail Mary’s and a couple Our Father’s for supporting an orthodoxy that relegates gays and women to second class status. Better yet, how about a prayer for the audacity to do something about it?

Can I get an Amen?

Hillary 2016

Chuck Dietrick — Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:50:05 GMT

The Hillary hype regarding 2016 has heated up over the past several months. Longtime Clinton insider, Paul Begala, stoked the fires in his April 14^th piece in the Daily Beast.

It’s understandable that the Dems are trying to lay some groundwork for four years from now. They are either going to be running against an incumbent Mitt Romney or an exceptionally strong GOP bench. In either event, they’ll need to put their best candidate forward.

Of course, the 2016 speculation, in my view, is a bit premature. The real and much more immediate question regarding Hillary is will she be on the ballot in 2012? Do not be surprised if Obama taps her as his running mate. As the Republicans coalesce around Mitt Romney and direct their fire exclusively at an already weak President, expect BO’s dropping poll numbers to cause widespread panic in Liberal Land. That will result in the win-at-all-costs Dems to reach for the one ace up their sleeve.

The pressure will likely be intense, but, Hillary won’t be a pushover--particularly if she believes her 2016 chances are better if not encumbered by a potentially losing 2012 ticket. The Clinton’s do have a way of looking out for number 1. Barry will need to persuade her that he and the Democrat Party are 1A. Promises to be very interesting.

Whether or not the GOP runs against Hillary in this election cycle or the next, they’ll need to climb out of a small hole they’ve dug for themselves. Because Obama and the Democrats have generally been so disastrous, and the Republicans have been hammering them incessantly, many on the Right have fallen into the trap of praising Hillary as a means of enhancing their fairness bona fides and mitigating the charges of hyper-partisanship.

The Dems have been effective at using their favorite tactic with respect to selling us on Hillary Clinton…namely, say something often enough and long enough until people think it's actually true.

Begala, true to form, writes, “Hillary is widely recognized to have done an excellent job,” referring to her tenure as Secretary of State.

Now, I’ll concede that Hillary is one of the more competent members of the Obama administration, but that’s like being the skinny kid at Fat Camp. My money’s on Hillary and Leon Panetta in the three-legged race.

Ain’t much competition for employee of the month in this inner circle.

My mind is open, but I’m having a hard time figuring out what is so “excellent” about the job she’s done. Do we have better relationships with Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, Syria, Egypt, the Palestinians, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, China, or Russia?

Perhaps she received a nice letter from Liechtenstein’s ambassador?

Or, maybe being a Democrat Secretary of State is like Liberal Little League…forget results, just bring home the participation trophy.

Way to go Brownie…er…Hillary.

Newt And Newtier

Chuck Dietrick — Thu, 12 Apr 2012 04:33:38 GMT

Just when you thought Newt couldn't get any Newtier, he goes and throws his size 10 hat back in the ring—right after Santorum’s exit, and ostensibly subsequent to conceding on Fox News Sunday. Damn near Obamaesque. Makes Barry’s 2008 promise to accept federal matching campaign funds kinda quaint.

Yet another reason Newt’s not fit for the presidency…although, he does have the shamelessness thing nailed.

One more ‘smartest guy in the room’ who can’t see the writing on the wall.

I have it on good authority that Newt’s decision to wade back in went something like this:

Newt: What do you think the chances are of a guy like me and an electorate like you ending up together?

Electorate: Well, Newt, that’s difficult to say. I mean, we don’t really…

Newt: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I’ve come a long way. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

Electorate: Not good.

Newt: You mean not good like one out of a hundred?

Electorate: I’d say more like one out of a million.

Pause…

Newt: So you’re tellin’ me there’s a chance! YEAH!!!

Newt and Newtier.

Spare us. Please. You’re not all that you think you are…and certainly not what we need. Time to move on.

Ring a bell?

The Old Gray Lady Is At It Again

Chuck Dietrick — Sun, 01 Apr 2012 04:42:41 GMT

Get ready. The Left is cranking up its demonization machine. Over the next few months there will be an all out assault on the conservative-leaning Supreme Court justices.

The New York Times editorial board just fired what will certainly be one of many salvos (The Roberts Court Defines Itself. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/opinion/sunday/the-roberts-court-defines-itself.html?ref=politics).

Facts and logic be damned.

The Times asserts that if Obamacare, or some portion thereof, is overturned, it will be proof positive that the principle of judicial restraint is out the window. In their not-so-balanced view, there is irrefutable evidence regarding the applicability of the Commerce Clause. Yep, despite the fact that nowhere in the Constitution does it specify that the federal government can compel one to affirmatively engage in commerce (i.e. purchase a product or service), nor is there precedent that clearly indicates same, the New York Times wants to convince you and me that the conservative faction of the court is acting ideologically and is thus delegitimized.

Apparently we’re supposed to set aside the fact that the Commerce Clause, as clearly articulated in the writings of both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, was specifically intended to protect freedom of trade--specifically by ensuring the regularity of interstate commerce through the prohibition of state tariffs. It was never meant to be used by activist judges to justify bad law.

Madison wrote that Congress’s regulatory authority “grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventative provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government....”

With remarkable historical obliviousness, the Times says, “If the conservatives decide that they can sidestep the Constitution to negate Congress’s choices on crucial national policies, the court’s legitimacy […] will pay a very heavy price.” Wonder if they felt the same about Brown v. Board of Education.

The Left has a hard time understanding that the federal government has enumerated powers. They frequently want the courts to do what Congress is incapable and/or unwilling to do legislatively. Or, as in this instance, they expect the court to fabricate and extrapolate a right through creative interpretation, as it did in Roe v. Wade. For the record, I support abortion rights (with reasonable restrictions), but believe strongly that the matter should have been left to the states, rather than justified via linkage to a non-enumerated “Right to Privacy” power.

To be fair, the many abuses and attempted abuses of the Commerce Clause are not limited to the Left. Conservative Justice and icon, and supposed strict constructionist, Antonin Scalia, has his own checkered past with the Commerce Clause. In the 2005 case, Gonzales v. Raich, Scalia infamously ruled on the federal conviction of a California man who grew marijuana for use in his home (allegedly for medicinal purposes). The Commerce Clause was used as supporting evidence in his opinion. How interstate commerce came into play is a mystery.

“A split court striking down the act will be declaring itself virtually unfettered by the law,” so says the New York Times. As opposed to a court that is willing to allow the government to compel virtually anyone to do anything?

That's a world that will require some revamping of the Statue of Liberty...

Out with the torch. In with a Taser.

What Would Sasha And Malia Do?

Chuck Dietrick — Sat, 24 Mar 2012 07:31:21 GMT

Have you noticed the President’s latest rhetorical device?

Despite his plea upon entering office to keep daughters, Sasha and Malia, out of the media spotlight, Obama is increasingly using them as props to explain his thinking on a host of prickly national issues. Apparently he believes we’ll be disarmed by the poignant references…and see his side--the supposed human side--as the right side.

If only politics were as tidy as an ABC Afterschool Special. Sasha and Malia, you’re good…but you’re no Lance Kerwin.

No matter the topic, BO has a Sasha and Malia angle.

So far, their names have been drawn into the debates on: public access to contraception; Rush Limbaugh’s inappropriate comments; the availability of the morning after pill to those 17 or older; the rescue of an American aid worker from Somali pirates, and the campaign against childhood obesity.

What’s next?

Middle East peace process--Similar to when Sasha and Malia fought over who first called dibs on the bigger White House bedroom.

Massive stimulus--Reminiscent of when Sasha and Malia asked to have their allowances raised.

Keystone pipeline--Kinda like when Sasha and Malia wanted to ride the giant water slide at Six Flags.

Healthcare reform--Akin to the time Sasha and Malia had to see the school nurse.

You know, I’m starting to be persuaded. The President’s arguments are much clearer when viewed through the Sasha and Malia prism.

No more will I need my Magic 8-Ball to figure out what the hell he’s trying to communicate.

It must have been defective, anyway…

Kept saying, “Reply hazy, try again.”

The President's Gas Problem

Chuck Dietrick — Tue, 20 Mar 2012 00:22:13 GMT

The gas price narrative that’s unfolding in the Obama camp and liberal circles is fascinating. Administration officials and their enablers are scrambling more frantically than Fran Tarkenton on a double espresso high. Yep, the guy who told us he’d lower the oceans, now can’t even figure out how to lower the price of gas.

It’s gotten so bad in Obamaland that after sending his minions out for weeks to tell us that gas prices are out of the President’s control, the White House just announced that ‘ole Barry is going on a field trip to an actual oil and gas field. YeeHaw! Apparently the photo-op is supposed to convince us gullible folk that BO (guess that now stands for Big Oil) has his hands on the wheel and is doing everything possible to ease our pain. I bet Axelrod already has a stunt staged. I can see it now…Obama swings a giant pickaxe and hits a gusher. Problem solved. Our hero.

You see, “no control” is a one way street. If the price happens to go down, I’m sure it will be due to the President’s sage stewardship.

Gotta love our blame-shifter-n-chief. Is it possible to be any less accountable? I mean, really!

George Orwell was right, “Enlightened people seldom or never possess a sense of responsibility.”

Poor Barack, the story goes...one man, even the President of the United States, is powerless to impact the price at the pump in the short/medium term. It’s the fault of those evil speculators. They’re holding us hostage.

Hmm. Speculators, huh?

You mean the speculators who speculate how future circumstances and events might impact the price of gas? The same circumstances and events that are driven or at least greatly impacted by presidential policies? The very policies that are making it as difficult as possible to exploit our own natural resources? The exact natural resources whose more abundant supply would enable us to put downward pressure on the price of gasoline?

Yeah, those speculators.

Do you think a more coherent energy policy might sway said speculators?

Perhaps one that calls for an aggressive conversion to a ground transportation infrastructure powered by liquefied natural gas?

Or, how about a policy that’s focused on creating supply that materially outstrips demand? Rather than living in a world where demand for oil is around 87 million barrels a day and supply is roughly the same (perhaps as high as 90 million barrels), imagine if supply were materially greater? Wouldn’t we be better able to absorb short-term shocks, and more importantly, wouldn’t the effort to sell excess supply put meaningful downward pressure on price?

I suspect the speculators’ tune would change pretty quickly if we put ourselves on a clear path to greater energy flexibility and less dependence.

If you think gas prices are high now, imagine what they’ll be in 2030 when demand is conservatively estimated to increase by 21%?

To not act now would be downright...dare I say...Orwellian.

Bubble Boys

Chuck Dietrick — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 04:15:01 GMT

George Will and Joe Scarborough really need to get outside the beltway more often. Their recent declarations that Obama is a virtual lock for reelection demonstrates just how out of touch the D.C. “intelligentsia” is with the real world.

This could be the worst prediction since Ken Olsen, the founder/CEO of Digital Equipment Corporation said, “There is no reason for any individual to have a computer in his home.”

Now I understand the term idiot savant.

Ya think that in 1999 Will and Scarborough were also touting a worldwide Y2K meltdown? If you need to borrow a generator or case of toilet paper, I suspect they’re your guys.

What is it that drives many on the Right to seek the approval of the Liberal media? It invariably comes off as insincere. It never results in support from the Left. And it frequently leads to a loss of credibility on the Right. Just ask Newt about Right Wing social engineering.

Let me see if I have this straight. We’re supposed to accept that a guy widely believed to have been capable of walking on water, yet who still only won by razor thin margins in a host of red and purple states, is a shoe-in for reelection when most now recognize that he not only doesn’t walk on water, but probably can’t even keep his head above it while wearing a couple floaties and a lifejacket?

That’s first rate political punditry.

Oh, right, they tell us it’s the mythical power of incumbency that’s going to propel him to a second term.

Yep, the same power that wasn’t able to save Carter from being tossed out on his keister, or LBJ from throwing in the towel. Guess that doesn’t fit the elite media’s narrative of the general public as a gaggle of idiots incapable of recognizing a failed presidency when they see it.

And, if incumbency is not enough, they remind us of the huge bounce Obama’s going to get from an “improving” economy. 227,000 new jobs last month! That’ll seal the deal, they proclaim. Disregard the fact that said jobs are coming over two years after the time period in which all post WWII recoveries have kicked into high gear…and the number of jobs is one third to one fifth what would be expected in the aftermath of a significant downturn. The Reagan recovery, by comparison, was creating upwards of 1.1 million jobs in a single month.

Apparently, we’re also supposed to look beyond the unimaginable deficits, wildly unpopular healthcare legislation, skyrocketing gas prices, unprecedented right track/wrong track poll numbers, enormous defection of independent voters, and muddled (to say the least) foreign policy.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no Pollyanna. I wrote extensively about the GOP not having a prayer in 2008.

Can the Republican candidate lose in 2012? Absolutely.

But, to not recognize that Obama is VERY vulnerable and a 50/50 bet at best is to ignore the facts (economic, electoral, and other) and to be common sense free.

Steve Jobs left his fortune to his family, but it seems that he bequeathed something much more priceless to George Will and Joe Scarborough…his reality distortion zone.

Open And Honest?

Chuck Dietrick — Wed, 07 Mar 2012 02:29:03 GMT

Vladimir Putin characterized his landslide victory in March 4th's presidential election as "open and honest." Wink.

The shirtless wonder flexed his muscles at the ballot box, where he won an "impressive" 64% of the vote.

His superpowers were on full display in Chechnya's Precinct 451 where he took a rather astonishing 1,482 out of 1,483 votes. Man, he's gotta be kickin' himself for blowin' the shutout!

Still, 1,482 to 1 is pretty damn impressive...perhaps not as remarkable, though, as the fact that the precinct only had 1,389 registered voters. Yep, Vlad the Great managed to snag an extraordinary 107% of the vote.

Jack Valenti, the late LBJ aide and long-time Motion Picture Association of America president used to say, "When I die, bury me in Texas because I want to remain politically active." Didn't realize he had so many followers in Russia.

Chechens, whose separatists were massacred multiple times by Putin forces, apparently are more forgiving than a confessional priest with a plane to catch.

Putin's campaign manager, Dimitri Axelrodov (), attributed the formidable showing to a strong ground game...and the team's successful fight against a voter-ID requirement.

The only guy who had a worse day than Vlad's opponents was the poor schlub who voted against Putin in Precinct 451.

Well, at least he won an all-expenses-paid trip to Siberia.