Presidential Debates Need Moderator Balance

When the dates and moderators for the Presidential Debates were announced last week it was hardly surprising that every moderator was left-leaning. That is just how it is. We have come to expect it. There isn't even a pretense that fairness might be an issue. This year's Presidential Debate moderators include Jim Lehrer of  PBS, Candy Crowley of CNN and the Bob Schieffer of CBS, all three nakedly liberal and not a peep from anyone. After years of watching these three in action is there anyone out there who thinks that the questions will be from some other perspective than liberal? Is there anyone who thinks these three will not be phrasing their questions to give Obama an advantage? Is there anyone out there who thinks the Debate Commission should have done a better job? Well, I think so. I think they should be embarrassed at having chosen three such obvious water bearers for Obama to moderate a debate with his opponent. I bet if they had chosen Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity as moderators a lot of liberals would be pulling their hair out and screaming bloody murder. Of course, not even I would expect the Commission to do that, but it's not too much to ask for fairness. It's not that hard.

Why Lose When You Can Win

Can't Republicans be smart just once? Instead of going on TV and radio and declaring they will kill the Democratic Tax Bill passed by the Senate, offer up the Republican version of the tax bill and call for a conference committee? It seems like such an obvious solution. It doesn't prevent the Democrats and their MSM allies from portraying the Republicans as only interested in helping the rich, but it does take air out the argument because Republicans are willing to debate a bill and seek a compromise to the tax question. If it is true that the entire tax debate is a charade and nothing will be done anyway until after the election, why are the Republicans willing to lose this battle without a fight by killing the bill and giving Democrats an unnecessary and undeserved victory? Think it over Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cantor,  Mr. McCarthy; do you guys ever want to win?

Why Infrastructure Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs

It is the fashion of Democrats to rant and rave about the importance of highways, bridges and other infrastructure spending as way to boost the economy through government spending in times of economic troubles. The problem is that due to the way infrastructure construction takes place it often takes years for it to produce jobs and provide economies with a boost. In fact, money earmarked or budgeted for these funds now will not be spent for several years, because the actual building of infrastructure takes much longer than appropriating money for it. It often takes years of planning just to begin implementing the construction process. New York’s various bridges, tunnels and subways demonstrate this aptly. Many have been in the works for two decades or more and are still not finished, not because of money, but because of bureaucracy and the time required to complete infrastructure building. In addition, such projects do not create new jobs, as most of these are existing union jobs and often go to the same construction firms’ generation after generation. None of this is to say that infrastructure spending is not a good thing; it is. It is only to say the jobs are not provided quickly and any such statements made by politicians who would like to use infrastructure as a way to boost the economy quickly are blowing smoke and you know whose face it is being blown in.

Obama's EO on Immigration

In view of the hysteria being generated over Obama's Executive Order on Immigration there is a need to closely analyze the "new" policy. When analyzed it can be determined that the new policy is nothing but a holding order that has no power in law and can be overturned on a whim by a succeeding President or made moot by real legislation from the Congress.  Both the President and Homeland Security Secretary have noted the new policy is neither Amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. They referred to it as a two-year "deferment" policy that qualified illegals aliens can sign up for. The qualifications are rather narrow. In return they will not be pursued for deportation and may qualify for work permits. Hello; we have not been pursuing these non-law-breaking immigrants and they get jobs anyway. Our cities and states are filled with them. Some colleges and universities offer them in-state tuition discounts. We have "sanctuary" cities around the country that make homes for them. We already have legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for illegals who serve in the military. So in that sense the order offers nothing new, but has been made to sound as if it is groundbreaking. It amounts to nothing more than a public relations gimmick to fool Hispanics into voting for President Obama in return for his "gift" to them. However, from an illegal alien's perspective this may not be such a great deal. When one applies for the program the government now has their vitals including where they live. So for example, if a President gets in office who wants to repeal the order and round up illegals it can be more easily done. Given how many other supporters Obama has thrown under the bus in the past, why would any illegal alien feel safe signing up for the Obama program now?

Why the Donkey is a Jackass

Whether it’s the General Services Administration, the Secret Service, the pursuits of individual Departments or the actions of a Democratic Congress, the common thread is President Obama’s inability to provide leadership and accountability. The behavior of those in the Obama Presidency is easily summed up by the words “out of control.” You have dozens and dozens of bureaucrats pursuing their own objectives as if they were put in place to pursue whatever goals they choose. They do so without considering the potential impact on the President, his office, his election, his status among the American people. It’s like an MTV government where anything goes as long as you can get away with it. It’s like Jackass, only they are using your money and destroying your economy. Consider the following: EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar are pursuing policies likely to cost Obama the election, yet they continue as if his election doesn’t even matter. Energy Secretary Steven Chu continues to throw good money after bad green energy ideas as if Solyndra and the other bankruptcies didn’t occur. Eric Holder decides to ignore the activity of the New Black Panthers, but sues states trying to enforce immigration and election laws. Not a single Democrat in the Hose of Representatives provides a vote for Obama’s budget, which lost 414-0. The Democratic Senate has not offered a Budget in three years. These are just a few of many things that have occurred without a whimper from the President. With the kind of friends Obama has, he doesn't need any enemies.

Lipstick on a Pig

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz proved she’s nothing more than a dumb blonde when she dodged Greta Van Susteren’s questions about the Democrat portion of the 2013 budget. DWS’s appearance on Greta’s show was intended to be a diatribe on the dangers to America of Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis) Budget Plan, but Greta kept asking why the Democrats had not put forth a budget that could result in a conference between the House and Senate, which is the way budgets are normally produced. For the record: Obama’s 2013 budget was defeated in the House 414-0. Not a single Democrat voted for it. DWS did not address the House defeat of Obama's budget as it never came up as a question from the normally astute Greta. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has already gone on record saying he does think the Democrats have to offer a budget until after the election. Instead DWS kept going back to the Democrat talking points on how dangerous the Ryan budget was to the future of America. The point that Greta was trying to make was that in order to have a budget negotiation you must have things to negotiate. If the Democrats won’t support Obama’s budget or put forth one of their own, how can any negotiating start? DWS never answered the question. So you see behind all the accusations of Republican obstructionism, it is the Democrats who are doing the obstructing and they are trying to do it by putting “lipstick on a pig.”

Obama's Catch-22 Moment

Obama faces some real "catch-22" moments: In order for him to be re-elected he must reject the very policies that made it possible for him to win the Presidency in the first place. A variation of you have to be in the union to get a job, but you can't join the union until you have one. Obama campaigned mightily against fossil fuel, and now after warring against it for three years his only pathway to cheaper energy is by supporting fossil fuel exploration and production. If energy prices continue to rise Obama cannot win. The President also campaigned heavily on the deficit, saying he would cut it in half in his first term. In fact, he has quadrupled the annual deficit in his first four years in office and has increased the national debt by almost $6 trillion. He has, some say, used a lot of this money as an "election" slush fund that has found its way into Obama's re-election campaign through vehicles such as green energy grant funding to companies managed by Obama election fund raisers. These are just two examples of the many reasons Obama will lose in November and that is perhaps his biggest Catch-22; As President a man can do many things, but to be President you have to win the election.