If we’re ever going to put a halt to the ballooning and unsustainable growth of the federal government, we need someone who’s willing to throw their weight around, both literally and figuratively. The time for lightweight, reach-across-the-aisle, wussie boys, a.k.a., Lindsey Graham, et al, is over. The time for fat guys who like to rumble is officially here.
My favorite fat guy who fits the bill is New Jersey governor Chris Christie. He has the two traits I most admire in a politician: Fat slobbery and big bullying. When tolerant lefties like Ed Schulz, who are busy elevating the political dialogue, can do no better than call someone names (“He’s a cold-hearted fat slob,” for instance), we’ve found a winner.
I run into self-proclaimed “liberals” who spout this meme about Christie in its various forms: “He’s a big, fat bully,” or, “He’s a mean, fat guy,” or “He’s a big jerk,” and so on. Then, when asked to defend their defamation they basically repeat themselves but put the words in a different order. But facts and critical thinking have never been the strong suit of the progressive mindset. It’s all about “feelings” and “fairness” and other ludicrous, unattainable and irrational notions. When in doubt, call someone ugly names or ask people to pray for their death. Then, turn right around and wail and cry about incivility and the lack of “tolerance” in the public discourse.
That’s exactly what the left has attempted to do to Christie. When the governor defends his policies with straight talk, they turn him into a hideous monster brow beating old ladies and saintly teachers who are all about the children (and their pensions, free health care, time off and tenure).
What they fail to mention is that he’s simply being honest. It’s terribly frustrating when people say they want politicians to be forthright and transparent, but when they actually are they’re portrayed as mean spirited bullies (cue violins and tears). No wonder there are so few politicians we can trust. What honest person would want to put up with that nonsense?
Fortunately, Chris Christie has and does put up with it, and he dishes it right back. However, when Christie dishes, he simply states the facts. The crap he has to put up with, on the other hand, truly is mean-spirited and distasteful. Check out this video where Christie discusses the tone of the political discourse in New Jersey and decide for yourself who’s really the bully and who’s really on the side of the people…
httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBaVvLmoE38
Maybe someday I’ll look back at what I’m about to write and say, “Wow! I was completely wrong about that one!” Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty will never be elected President of the United States. The Governor is currently and foolishly putting a team together to run in 2012, but he shouldn’t bother. Whoever put the story together over at POLITICO couldn’t even bother to find a decent picture of the Governor.
There’s a very superficial angle to presidential politics. Pawlenty looks like a Republican John Kerry to me. He’s the type of guy you nominate when you know there’s not an Atlanta Braves making the playoffs chance of winning. Pawlenty’s problems aren’t his politics. He just lacks charisma. He’s not the type of candidate you get excited about when he speaks, or writes, or generally shows up for anything. His speech at the RNC, for instance, was the miracle cure for insomnia modern medicine has been looking for all these years.
Is this a fair way of determining who should be President? No, but I’m not going to ignore reality. Abraham Lincoln may have been a dull person, but we’ll never really know since there’s no film from those days. The content of his rhetoric, however, was amazing. In those days that was enough. With the advent TV and the 24/7 news cycle charisma counts. President Obama was elected primarily based on his charisma and his race; Pawlenty has neither of these traits going for him.
The 2012 election is still a long way off, but the jockeying is already starting. Republicans do not have a lot of talent on the bench so it’s going to be difficult for a newcomer to come out of nowhere like Obama. Obama benefited from press adoration years before making a run. Abraham Lincoln could be resurrected from the dead and run for President again, and still the press would label him a racist member of the extreme right. It’s not going to be easy road running against Obama, especially if you’re Tim Pawlenty.
Tonight after Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress governor Bobby Jindal is giving the Republican response. Typically the response is pointless and for the most part it will be tonight. Jindal is probably the most brilliant politician to hit the national stage since Bill Clinton. Yes, I just skipped over the current president. Watching Obama speak away from a teleprompter is painful. Clinton and Jindal do not share that same problem. The Washington Post has more on Jindal.
Now, 17 years later, Jindal is governor of Louisiana and the anointed boy wonder of a Republican Party left battered by the 2008 election and hungry for new leadership. Jindal’s audition on the national stage is tonight, when he delivers his party’s response to President Obama’s address to a joint session of Congress.
Jindal, 37, was still working last night on the 10-minute speech. Aides said he is writing it himself, although he has received input from party leaders. The fast-talking governor plans to rehearse with a teleprompter today before giving the address live from the governor’s mansion in Baton Rouge.
He’s writing it himself? No one writes their own speeches anymore. Jindal is going to be receiving a lot of talk about running in 2012, but unless Obama crashes and burns I don’t expect to see Jindal run until 2016. The problems in Louisiana are enough to torpedo any national candidacy. If Jindal is successful in reforming Louisiana and reducing corruption he’ll be the likely choice for president in the future.
In 1996 the Congress passed the Line-Item Veto Act that gave the President the ability to veto certain budget appropriations that aren’t crucial to the overall bill. President Clinton had the power for two years before it was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. A constitutional amendment is necessary to add the line-item veto. During the Bush administration the Democrats and Republicans weren’t interested in addressing this issue. President Obama should call for a line-item veto amendment. Obama has the power to make it happen and he has the votes in congress to muster the two-thirds vote required to pass. Although it’s no slam dunk that two-thirds of the states would ratify the amendment. Many of these states like the current arrangement because the Federal Government is funding Atomic Clocks and building bridges to nowhere.
Help us Barack Obama, you’re our only hope
Some argue that the line-item veto gives the executive branch too much power, but I believe it is necessary to reign in government spending. The stimulus package coming out of congress is a perfect example. Despite Obama’s assertions otherwise the bill is filled with wasteful spending. A line-item veto would give the president the ability to cut many of those pet projects out of the bill. Americans could also hold the president responsible for out of control spending. Let’s face, most presidents are not going to take on their own party on the Hill. Bush didn’t keep the Republicans from spending and Obama isn’t interested in stopping the Democrats. Obama seems to forget Democrats have been running the Congress since 2006 and the deficits that have come with their budgets.
The president should have every tool at his disposal to reduce waste and the line-item veto is needed.
Recent Comments