Here’s a video giving us a timeline of what happened when in the story of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac collapse. Take special note of who was for regulation and who was against it.
Some more of "change" in the Obama administration that I’ve been saving up for a few weeks.
"Capturing or killing Osama bin Laden" used to be "a critical aspect of stamping out al Qaeda". Now he just needs to be "pinned down" or just kept "on the run". Some of this "change" Obama speaks of apparently means change from his campaign rhetoric. (H/T Don Sensing.)
Two years ago, Obama called the expansion of coal-fired electricity his "worst nightmare". Two weeks ago, Obama’s choices for both the EPA and the Energy Department described the industry as "vital" and coal as a "great natural resource". The environmentalists are not happy at this "change".
In spite of Obama’s promise to severely reduce or eliminate the influence of lobbyists in Washington, Harry Reid said that Obama would be meeting with lobbyists and him, where the president would be doing business with them. Reid said, "And there’s nothing wrong with that." I happen to agree with Reid (petitioning the government is a right, though it can, like anything, be misused), but Obama’s promises like this keep falling by the wayside. (H/T Q & O.)
Hmm, wonder if I should rename this feature "StillTheSameWatch"…
What would my course be if I were one of the 100 Senators voting for confirmations for Mr Obama’s Presidency. My result may come as a surprise, being as I am a member of the loyal opposition, that I would vote to confirm. Don’t get me wrong, I would advise that many of these appointees are regrettable choices and will do more harm than good to the country and to his administration. Take Mr Geithner and Mr Holder for example. Both I think have lied about the past issues on which they were questioned. I think Mr Geithner withheld taxes knowingly and it is likely that Mr Holder was a willing participated in the pardons-for-cash (and favors) and suggesting Mr Rich during the embarrassing pardon spree at the end of Mr Clinton’s term in office.
However … Federalist paper 76 is clear and I think in fact right. When the Senate intrudes too much into the appointment process then the dangers of which Mr Hamilton warns are evident by the disastrous confirmation proceedings we’ve seen in the last decades when such advice was ignored. A primary example of this is Justice Thomas. The reasons for rejection suggested by Hamiton were:
It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity.
That is not the case with either candidate … therefore, I it were up to me I would vote to confirm … even though I think they have considerable talents for prevarication being demonstrated, oddly enough, in these confirmation hearings.
If you’re curious about what Jim Wallis, CEO of the Christian social justice organization Sojouners, thinks about President Obama’s views on abortion, then take a look at the BeliefNet article, Jim Walllis Supports Obama’s Abortion Approach. An excerpt,
In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized abortion debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground. I hope that this important gesture signals the beginning of a new approach and a new path toward finding some real solutions to decrease the number of abortions in this country and around the world.
Nonsense.
Let’s take the roof off of this argument by substituting a couple of choice words into the original…
In breaking the symbolic cycle, President Obama showed respect for both sides in the historically polarized slavery debate, and called for both a new conversation and a new common ground. I hope that this important gesture signals the beginning of a new approach and a new path toward finding some real solutions to decrease the number of slaves in this country and around the world.
If you truly care about social justice, Mr. Wallis, then please call a spade a spade; but don’t patronize us with rhetoric which is illogical, at best, and immoral, at worst.
Five days in, and President Obama has made at least two significant moves: One, he signed an executive order which will effectively close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, thereby releasing terror suspects; two, he issued a memorandum which lifts a ban on U.S. funding for international groups that perform abortions.
Score:
Terror suspects – 1, Unborn children – 0
Change? Certainly. Hope? Hardly.
Christians, pray for Obama.
It’s been said that George W. Bush squandered the goodwill we had immediately after 9/11. Matthew Kaminiski writing in Forbes last month, however, brings another perspective as we begin the Obama administration; don’t mistake sympathy with pro-Americanism.
One hates to spoil a good party, but here’s a bet that’s far safer these days than a U.S. Treasury bill: Even with Obama at the White House, they won’t really like us any more than before.
At least according to the incoming President Obama. Charles Krauthammer explains, but I just have the bullet points here to get you to "Read the Whole Thing"(tm). All lines below are quotes from the article.
The upshot?
Which is why Obama is consciously creating a gulf between what he now dismissively calls "campaign rhetoric" and the policy choices he must make as president. Accordingly, Newsweek — Obama acolyte and scourge of everything Bush/Cheney — has on the eve of the Democratic restoration miraculously discovered the arguments for warrantless wiretaps, enhanced interrogation and detention without trial. Indeed, Newsweek’s neck-snapping cover declares, "Why Obama May Soon Find Virtue in Cheney’s Vision of Power."
Another "Now They Tell Us" moment in the mainstream media. All the anger and disdain thrown at Bush, figuratively here and by a certain Iraqi reporter there, is over ideas and policies that the incoming administration has show it’ll be slow to dismantle. Those policies have indeed kept up safe for the 7 years since 9/11.
No, the ends do not at all justify the means. But for some of us, these were just wars. For others, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were just, and the reflexively anti-war crowd will continue to push Obama, as they did Bush, to just do whatever our enemies want so they won’t get angry with us. Or perhaps isolate them, which "worked" so well for the 70+ years of aggressive communism in the Soviet Union. That even failed miserably with Hussein’s Iraq, with our own "allies" funneling aid to them through the back door.
No, George W. Bush kept us safe, and, despite the rancor and alarmism, without shredding the Constitution or civil liberties. Obama played on the fears of his supporters long enough to get elected President, but the time has come for action, and before you judge the actions of his predecessor, see what his actions are. That will speak louder to the success or failure of George W. Bush than any pundit’s pen can write.
From CNN, Obama may quickly reverse abortion policy,
President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.
Obama’s second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.
The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the “Mexico City policy” reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.
Will you begin your term, President-elect Obama, with an act that may begin to help confirm Robert George’s pronouncement of you being our most pro-abortion president ever?
Amidst the incessant proclamations of history being made, what with Obama’s inauguration, I can’t help but wonder what Dr. King would think of how Obama has already betrayed, and will continue to betray, the most innocent in our land.
Christians: Pray for Barack Obama
As we approach the end of George W. Bush’s presidency, many postmortems will be written to explain how horrible or wonderful the President performed depending on point of view. No doubt many liberals will be quick to proclaim Bush as the worst president ever. But he did in fact have many achievements.
I believe that history is likely to judge him far more kindly as time passes. President Bush’s lasting legacy will be the War on Terror. His response to the 9/11 attacks reset forever our approach to terrorism. Unless President-elect Barack Obama totally dismantles the anti-terrorism measures adopted under President Bush (and I don’t think he will), President Bush will long be remembered as the President who forever changed America’s approach to terrorism.
But there are those critics of President Bush who will bring up the economy as evidence of malfeasance on the part of the outgoing President. A couple of factors to consider: (1) the foundation for the economic collapse was laid back during President Clinton’s time in office when regulations restricting lending practices at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and (2) the financial crisis occurred so late in President Bush’s term that there was not time for him to see the crisis to a conclusion.
Come January 20th, the economy will be Obama’s problem. It will be the issue most likely to dominate his presidency much as the Great Depression did for most of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s time in office. The best way that President-elect Obama can succeed is to realize first that blaming President Bush will get him nowhere.
Mr. Obama has stated on several occassions that FDR has been a role model for him as he prepares for the presidency. He would do well to remember that Roosevelt’s economic policies did more to prolong the Great Depression that to relieve it. Unfortunately for him, Democrats have never met a government program that they didn’t like. Unless Mr. Obama can demonstrate a willingness to stand up to his party and try to relieve the economy through other means besides more spending we may be in for tough economic times for many years to come. That will be the legacy that will dog President Obama, not President Bush.
With all the promises of change that Barack Obama got his supporters to believe, we’re now finding out that "promises" are more like "goals". Or perhaps "hopes".
Close Gitmo on the first day in office? First week? First 100 days? Well, technically, he may only issue an order to do it soon, but it’s "a challenge" to even close it within the first 100 days. The ACLU wants a timetable. Good luck with that.
"That’s a challenge," Obama said on ABC’s "This Week." "I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do."
It’s not as easy as some on the Left expected it would be. The "Reality-based community" finds that facing reality isn’t what they thought it would be.
Iraq withdrawal within 16 months? Well, Biden has said that they’re going to follow the Bush plan instead. Additional take on this and all the Iraq issues at RedState.
Universal Health Care is being back-burnered. Indeed, the economic crisis should be one of the top priorities, but I thought this whole scheme was supposed to save us all money. If it’s such a win-win for the economy and health care, why delay? Hmmm. (Perhaps it has something to do with how poorly UHC is working in places like Massachusetts?)
No lobbyists serving in policy areas they have worked to influence in the past year. So then, September 2008 is technically last year.
Interrogation techniques that Obama campaigned against may actually get a new lease on life. Newsweek tells us:
Dick Cheney, who will step down as vice president on Jan. 20, has been widely portrayed as a creature of the dark side, a monstrous figure who trampled on the Constitution to wage war against all foes, real and imagined. Barack Obama was elected partly to cleanse the temple of the Bush-Cheney stain, and in his campaign speeches he promised to reverse Cheney’s efforts to seize power for the White House in the war on terror.
It may not be so simple
This could be another entry in my "New They Tell Us" category. This was so simple during the campaign, but now they tell us it’s complex. Nuance, anyone?
All this added to Obama’s waffling on tax cuts, windfall profits taxes on Big Oil, and FISA. Now, I have no illusion that Obama has become some sort of bedrock conservative (though he’s been seen in the company of some), and we’re still likely to see many a liberal policy enacted. However, underneath all this complaining by the Left that the new boss seems the same as the old boss is one thought; maybe the old boss got some things right.
Nancy Pelosi has approved new rules for the House that will keep the old boy (or girl) network firmly in place. In 1995, when the Contract With America propelled Republicans into Congress, one of the points of the contract was to limit the terms of committee chairs so that you remove the ability of one Representative to rule the roost until they retired or died. This reduces the opportunity for corruption to build up over time or last for decades. It brings in new blood to bring new eyes to the issues.
Pelosi will have none of this. Let’s see how the rest of her party feels when the rules package is voted on.
A question that struck me regarding the Rick Warren flap.
I’ve been paying attention to Presidential races and elections since 1972 … and voted in every election since 1980, which makes for some 6 to 8 Presidential elections … and that’s what a good half dozen swearing in ceremonies. And I’ve never ever watched one or had the slightest interest in paying them any mind or thought that watching, much less attending, was a “thing to do.”
So no matter what you think about Mr Obama’s choice of Rev. Warren, why do you think this matters? And for that matter, have you yourself ever watched a swearing in or felt it a thing “to do?” If so, why?
Much has been written about Pastor Rick Warren’s invitation to give the invocation at President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration in just a few weeks. Many on the left have been upset about the selection of Pastor Warren because of his stance against homosexual marriage. Some on the right are suggesting that he may be compromising the gospel for the sake of political influence.
Pastor Warren is symbolic of what’s happened to evangelicals over the past 30 or so years. The church has forsaken the gospel in favor of gaining political and cultural influence. As a result, principles have been compromised.
If Pastor Warren truly wants to be effective, then he should take Cal Thomas’ advice and be more like the prophet Nathan:
If Obama plans on having Warren as a presence in his presidency, Warren should seek to model himself more after Nathan the prophet. Nathan confronted King David over his affair with Bathsheba, whose husband, Uriah the Hittite, David sent to the front lines to ensure he would be killed so that David could have his wife. God sent Nathan to David. Nathan told David a story about a rich man who stole a poor man’s lamb rather than take one from his own flock to feed a visitor. Nathan asked David what should happen to such a man. David replied, “that man should surely die.” To which Nathan replied, “You are the man.” (2 Samuel 12)
Nathan’s confrontation led to David’s repentance and one of the most beautiful Psalms ever written (Psalm 51). The point is that Nathan did not compromise Truth, but confronted David with what he had done wrong. How many modern preachers would confront a president like that? Probably not many if they wanted to maintain access.
Former Governor Mike Huckabee wrote this in his book Do The Right Thing quoting his mentor James Robison:
The prophets of old were rarely invited back for a return engagement. In fact, most of them were never invited the first time. They came to speak truth to power regardless of the consequences.
Governor Huckabee goes on to note that one can be a politician or a prophet but never both. My hope is that Pastor Warren will take this opportunity to be a prophet and not worry about being invited by President Obama for another speaking engagement.
John Rowe (for example this post at Positive Liberty) is just one example of many who frequently cite the notion that Christian theology is not one of freedom. Putting it quite strongly, a commenter Andy Craig apropos of the post above notes:
A pretty good argument as to why biblical Christianity is on the whole a fundamentally authoritarian worldview and has little place in a world of individual liberty, actually. It’s one of the main reasons I rejected Christianity and religion in general (most religions take a similar view of government authority).
In the post itself, it is noted that Romans 13 written by St. Paul in the rule of Nero (who it might be noted did have a predilection for augmenting lighting public fixtures with Christian corpses) specifically enjoins the Christian,
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
which is pretty straightforward … it seems. However, this in a large measure misses the point. Read the rest of this entry
President-elect Obama has invited Saddleback pastor Rick Warren to give the invocation (i.e. opening prayer) at the inauguration. While Obama and Warren disagree on some issues, Obama says he wants to "create an atmosphere where we can disagree without being disagreeable." In fact, this follows in the footsteps of Bush’s choice in 2004, as the Huffington Post notes.
At his 2005 inaugural, George W. Bush tapped Rev. Dr. Louis Leon to deliver the invocation. Like Obama and Warren, the two shared a commitment to combating AIDS in Africa, as well as a friendship from time spent in each other’s company. But Leon was and is a progressive voice. And his selection in ’04 sparked a lot of interest, though little of the outrage that we see with Warren.
Indeed, the "tolerant" Left side of the blogosphere didn’t seem to get the "disagree without being disagreeable" memo.
Americablog: “Great, then where are the racists, Mr. Obama?"
Markos himself at Daily Kos: “Yeah. Where is David Duke’s invitation? Or as Blue Texan notes, when do Phelps and Hagee get their invitations? Heck, throw up Tom Tancredo up there for good measure, so us Latinos can feel some of the hate!”
Atrios: "Wanker of the Day: Barack Obama."
Firedoglake: "President-elect Obama chose eliminationist hate preacher Rick Warren to give the invocation at Obama’s Inaguration. With this choice, Obama sends three destructive messages. Number one: In Obama’s America, equal rights and reproductive freedom aren’t for everyone. Number two: President-elect Obama likes sharing the national stage with hate. Number three: While Obama enjoys his equality before the law, LGBT Americans can go to Hell. Literally. Gee. Is this change we can believe in?"
Andrew Sullivan: "…pandering to Christianists at his inauguration is a depressing omen."
Think Progress: "…he laughs off accusations of being ‘homophobic’ because he ‘talks to’ gay people and served protesters water."
(A tip of the hat to Don Surber and John Hawkins, from whom I got much of this list, and who have even more examples.)
Once again, we have examples of liberals, who tout their "tolerance" and "acceptance", being wholly unable to handle any sort of deviation from the orthodoxy. Additionally, as even the Huffington Post notes, the folks they claim are the intolerant ones actually were more accepting when they were in the same situation.
Tolerance. You keep using that word. I do no think it means what you think it means.
