C'est le change, Obama-style

Today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal caught my eye this morning, reminding me of a famous French proverb that should be kept close at hand over the next four years: "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose". Translated: "The more things change, the more they stay the same." It sure didn't take long for Barack Obama to answer one of the compelling questions that I repeatedly raised during his campaign: will he be the "post-partisan" candidate that he promised to be? Or will he be the highly partisan politician he proved himself to be in the United States Senate?

The answer to this has come early in week #2 of his term, when he decided to ram the economic stimulus through the House of Representatives on purely partisan lines -- bowing to Nancy Pelosi in the process. As the Journal reports:

Barack Obama promised to end the "politics of division," unite Washington's factions and overcome partisanship. And what do you know -- so far he has: The President's stimulus plan generated bipartisan House opposition, with every Republican and 11 Democrats voting against it on Wednesday. It passed 244-188. The political class is feigning shock that Mr. Obama's stylistic olive branches to the GOP -- cocktail hour at the White House, cutting a line item for shrubbery on the National Mall -- failed to peel off even a single vote across the aisle. The chatter is that Republicans were taking a great political risk to oppose a President with 70%-plus approval ratings on his first piece of legislation. But the real risk here is to Mr. Obama, and it isn't from Republicans. It's from his fellow Democrats. Given the miserable economy and the Beltway's neo-Keynesian policy consensus, a true compromise would have gathered overwhelming support. But rather than use Mr. Obama's political capital to craft such a deal, the White House abdicated to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. House Democrats proceeded to ignore all GOP suggestions as they wrote the bill, shedding tax cuts while piling on spending for every imaginable interest group. The bipartisan opposition reflects how much the Pelosi bill became a vehicle for partisan social policy rather than economic stimulus.

Genuine bipartisanship means compromises on policy, not photo-ops and hand shakes. The last two Democratic Presidents, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, also came to power with big Democratic majorities in Congress, veered far to the left on policy, and quickly came undone. To adapt White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel's now famous line, a 70% approval rating is a terrible thing to waste on the ideas of Henry Waxman and Pete Stark.

One of my biggest fears about Barack Obama was that he would not be strong enough to stand up to the far-left partisans of his own party, and would be bullied into following the ideologues into a standard liberal abyss -- filled with the kind of redistributive social policies that brought us the Great Society and other expansive social progams. Given the unprecedented recent expansion of the government into our economy, with tax payers spending trillions on bail-outs and flame-outs, the hope was the Obama would be able to put pragmatism over politics on managing the public's interest. So much for "hope" and "change".

Of course, "change" was always an ill-defined bromide, capable of allowing the Obama campaign to create a narrative that had almost nothing of substance underneath it. It was the perfect vessel for this candidate, who gave people hope without telling them what specifically he was going to do to make such lofty ideas and goals a reality. And now we know that for all the rhetoric, the reality is something we've seen before: old style partisan politics with big government aspirations.

Change we can believe in, mon ami.

Actions show who really cares in US

Mr. Obama encouraged us to all be part of making America better. I can get behind that because I am a compassionate conservative, and that’s what we do. Liberal-minded Arthur Brooks, in his 2006 book Who Really Cares, documents that conservatives, from sea to shining sea, give more than liberals in volunteer time and charitable contributions. Here is a review of the book.

Mr. Brooks begins by “discussing and dismissing the implicit notion that you are ‘more or less compassionate simply because [you] support taxing wealthy people’ or are ‘dissatisfied with the adequacy of government social programs’.”

He then draws his conclusion from 10 data sets, making four main points:

1 - The four forces in American life primarily responsible for making people charitable are “religion, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism”.

2 - Conservative principles are most congenial to the four forces of charity.

3 - Liberals, who often claim to care more about others than conservatives do, are personally less charitable.

4 - Policies that displace (crowd out) personal charity are harmful to the nation because charity is good for the giver.

The next time someone wants to demonize or criticize a conservative, remember these facts about compassionate conservatism and helping others.

So yes Mr. President, I will support you by continuing to offer my time and resources to help others.

ET threat eases with Bush gone

One of the very few benefits of the Obamanaugurasm is the anticipated decline of rampant cases of Bush Derangement Syndrome. BDS is the psychological malady that places all blame for all misfortune anywhere in the world squarely on the shoulders of our 43rd president, or any of the administration’s supporting cast. Here in Colorado, BDS went out with an attempted bang at Aspen on New Year’s Eve, when a psychologically disturbed Bush-hater (is there any other kind?) left bombs at two banks, prepared more, and delivered threatening notes promising a “horrible price in blood." The reason: “Too many people and I do hate Rove/Bush with a passion.”

The various feeble attempts at Bush-bashing in the media (“Was Bush the worst president ever, or just one of the worst of the last century?”) and during the Inaugurasm festivities were at worst the final pathetic whimper of BDS as the 43rd presidency drew to a close.

But just when it appeared that Bush Derangement Syndrome had at long last culminated in a bang or a whimper, it appears that we’re not through with the loony lefties (literally in this case) just yet. Buried deep in the 22 January edition of the possibly-soon-to-be-late-lamented Rocky Mountain News (p.28) is the following gem:

Alien Invasion Plan on Hold

A proposed ballot initiative to create a government commission in Denver tasked with developing a strategy to deal with space aliens on Earth has been shelved.

For the time being, anyway.

"It’s on hold for now because of the confidence that I feel and a lot of people feel in the Obama administration in moving toward more disclosure of the UFO/extraterrestrial information," said Jeff Peckman, whose proposed Extraterrestrial Affairs Commission generated national headlines.

"But I would say I’m only 51 percent confident, so I’m not abandoning the ballot initiative," he said Wednesday.

Whew! It’s good to know that the Obamessiah has the confidence (well, 51% confidence, anyway) of the moonbat contingent, and in addition to healing the planet, halting the rise of the oceans, caring for the sick, housing the people (“living in the street”), shoeing the children (“with no shoes on their feet”) – oh, there’s a solution – Obama will be working on the alien invasion issue.

When does that poor man ever sleep?

We all want to change the world

That line from a Beatles tune keeps coming to mind as we observe not only the inauguration of a president, but the ushering in of an entire cultural revolution, a new heart throb, super jock, and teen idol to swoon over; a new rock star that storms onto center stage. "You say you want a revolution? Well, you know, we all want to change the world."

More importantly, the media and Hollywood have now found religion.  They have witnessed the birth of their savior, and they are aglow with born-again fever.

I watched the introductions of dignitaries onto the inaugural platform, the swearing-in and the speech yesterday.  In the land of Hopeandchange, I was highly disappointed that Mr. Obama has not yet groomed his troops in proper etiquette and appropriate conduct during a historical moment.  His adoring fans that boo-ed both President and Laura Bush, their daughters and the Cheney family should really be educated so as not to tarnish that all-inclusive love fest atmosphere that is to surround our president. 

The speech did not inspire me, but then, this is the first president I can remember that has not reached out much at all to those that did not vote for him and do not support many of his policies.  Usually, a bone is thrown out to the tune of, "You may not have voted for me, but today, I'm your president, too, and I am here to serve you and listen to you, as well."  President Obama does not have to acknowledge the millions that did not support him during the election.  He dismisses us as insignificant, irrelevant and part of the past.  We are the group he referred to in his speech when he said "the ground has shifted" beneath our feet. We can either find our footing, which is squarely behind him in all things, or prepare to be ignored.

Critics are talking about the aggressive agenda President Obama has for his first days in office.  They say he's taking on more than he can manage in the early going.  While he may have more directives than he can get accomplished in a short while, you can't blame him for trying.  After all, he's at cruising altitude with a nice tail wind in perfectly clear skies and fantastic flying weather.  Why would he not seize those ideal conditions?  With an adoring media, mind-boggling amounts of money sitting at the ready to fund advertising to promote his agenda, he has the most friendly, conducive climate to achieve his goals of any incoming president. 

The youth vote takes much credit for electing their new pop culture hero.  Dick Morris made a statement recently that should prompt the Republican party to sit up and take notice and start sharpening their communication skills.  Morris stated that Obama will be able to push through much of his agenda by simply text messaging his supporters.  Obama's theme yesterday was that he needs his supporters now to help him bring about change.   Translation:  "Congress and the general public may not back me up, so I'll need you guys to make lots of noise to help push things through."  He'll reach out to his voters, asking them to contact their representatives in Washington each time he hits a roadblock in Congress or with dissenters in general.  Washington listens to massive input from voters--they want to keep their jobs.

Young people think its very cool to get an instant message from the guy they voted into office.  Using technology, along with his charismatic personality, he's gotten the under 30 crowd right where he wants them.  He promises them change and they sign on because they feel entitled to education, healthcare and other government subsidies.  Just as the Beatles changed hearts and minds in the 1960's and '70's about national defense, capitalism, personal responsibility, organized religion and morals, President Obama now has the power and backing to do a total remake of our culture as he sees fit.  His youth support will stand with him.

As policy discussions ensue about the Don't Ask, Don't Tell  issue, whether or not the federal government will pay for abortions both here and in other countries, increased spending and budget deficit expansion, nationalized healthcare, unionization of the workplace, increased taxes, and putting more people on the welfare roles, and thus, destroying incentive we will start to observe if the current level of popularity continues.  Education reform is also high on the 'to do' list and the new education secretary has trained and studied under Bill Ayers.  Before being tapped for this new position, he was working diligently in Chicago to create a socially reformed high school which would require half the students be gay and the other half straight. 

There is change coming, and we better get ready.  Our pubic school textbooks will continue to be written to support a political agenda.  Our healthcare will be delivered as the government deems appropriate and to whom.  Our place of work may well become an environment of organized labor and forced union dues to a political party we may not support.  We may see higher fuel taxes,  meant to discourage commerce and freedom to travel or drive a distance for a job  We may see taxes for our pets, luxury taxes based on the square footage of our homes and taxes on how much energy we use (the government will install thermostats to keep tabs on our usage). 

Farming as we know it may change because the newer mindset is that farming destroys the environment and livestock may be taxed, or preferably, done away with completely.  Off-shore oil drilling and increased efforts to extract clean coal and natural gas may be rejected.  The jobs and clean energy nuclear plants could provide will not be part of our energy policy.  While wind and solar may have great potential in years to come, they are not ready yet to assume the energy needs of our growing nation.  Military spending may be dramatically decreased with career soldiers discouraged from re-enlisting in order to save money.  As trouble sprouts around the world that threatens our national security, increased troop levels may be met by reinstituting the draft (if Charlie Rangel has his way). 

When Bob Dylan wrote, "The Times, They are A-Changin'",  he must have been able to see the coming of Barack Obama.  He chides mothers and fathers to get out of the way of their sons and daughters that are moving toward the change.  He tells congressmen that soon their windows will rattle with coming change.  He advises writers to use their pens to write about change.  He tells us change is engulfing us like rising waters.  Whether it's the Beatles, Dylan or other 1960's anti-establishment musicians, they surely inspired the Weather Underground crowd and other revolutionary factions of society.  It's taken longer than they probably had thought, but the agents of change and revolt of that era are finally realizing their visions.   Change has come to America.

Keep the change, Mr. President

Will Obama deliver on his oft-repeated promise of “change"? Probably not, and let's hope not. For one thing, his chosen team largely recreates that muddled, discredited Clinton administration. Recall that officials of Clinton’s administration initiated the unsound Freddie/Fanny loan policy that brought us the current mortgage crisis. Similarly, Obama’s “new New Deal” gravely threatens America’s injured economy. As explained by economics professor Thomas DiLorenzo, FDR’s New Deal substantially worsened and prolonged the Great Depression. Applying those failed Big Government concepts to today’s crisis makes no sense. When a scheme doesn’t work, you don’t repeat it.

You’re smarter than that. The Dems apparently aren’t.

Big Government cannot promote a healthy, thriving economy. What the “nanny state” offers is theft disguised as “redistributing the wealth” by which the deceptive nannyists mean taking your hard-earned income, keeping or wasting most of it, and doling out a pathetic pittance to recipients of their choice.

If you believe that you deserve the earnings of your bright ideas and plain hard work, you must equally uphold that for others as well. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson stated, “… a wise government … shall not take from … labor the bread it has earned.”

Jefferson illuminated another severe flaw in Clinton/Obama nannyism. By its very nature, Big Government is a profound insult to every one of us. We are, according to the nannyists, too stupid to formulate sensible decisions. By definition, nannyists deem us inferior. Jefferson described “two parties: Those who … distrust the people and want to draw all powers from them … [and those] who identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them….”

So, after all, we will all be better off if Obama’s oft-promised “change” doesn’t materialize. We don’t need a repetition of Dems’ insulting and economically destructive nannyist policies.