Thomas Del Beccaro, “The Most Heard Voice in CA Republican Politics,” is the Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party, Publisher of PoliticalVanguard.com, author of The New Conservative Paradigm and frequent talk radio and television commentator. In those roles, Tom is heard by millions of conservative activists on the radio, TV and in person each year. In his multiple roles, Tom is uniquely positioned to hear the pulse of politics all the way from the grass roots to Presidential candidates and legislators in between.
Tom was first elected Vice Chairman of the California Republican Party in February of 2007 and re-elected in 2009. He was formerly Republican Party County Chairman of Contra Costa for three terms and former President of all 58 Republican Party County Chairman in California. Tom is currently running unopposed to be Chairman of the California Republican Party.
Tom is perhaps best known for his frequent talk radio show guest appearances which number over 300 per year around the Country. In California, Tom weekly appears on San Diego’s KCBQ 1170 w/ Mark Larson at 7:35 am, Monterey’s 1460 KION on the Mark & Jim show at 8:35 am, Riverside/San Bernardino’s KTIE 590 News hour at 5:50 am and on KTKZ 1380 w/ Eric Hogue each Friday at 12:20 pm for Tom’s “Week In Review.” Tom also has regular appearances on SF Bay Area’s 560 KSFO, Fresno’s 580 KMJ, Bakersfield’s 1410 KERN and Santa Maria’s AM 1440 among other stations. Tom appears on TV over 50 times per year and is seen from time to time on KTVU (Fox affiliate), KPIX (CBS affiliate including in studio commentary), ABC7, KNTV 11 (NBC affiliate including in studio commentary) and KRON.
With the release of his book, The New Conservative Paradigm, Tom was heralded by Mona Charen as a writer that “Not since Newt Gingrich in the 90s has a Republican activist so clearly analyzed what has gone right and wrong for the party and the Conservative movement.” Tom made over 150 book signing appearances for the book.
In the last six years, Tom has made over 400 speeches/lectures throughout the State of California and beyond including for the San Francisco Commonwealth Club, Western C-PAC, the University of California at Berkeley, International Trade Association, dozens of conservative and Republican groups and other community groups.
Tom first published the Internet Magazine PoliticalVanguard.com in 2002 which has featured his weekly column since its inception and has received millions of hits. Tom has written on subjects as diverse as foreign policy and economics, as well as national and state politics. Tom’s columns have been featured in numerous California based websites such as The FlashReport.org, The FoxandHoundsdaily.com as the Montecito Journal Newspaper.
Tom is the Chair of the FirstAmendmentNow.com Campaign to Save Talk Radio from the federal regulators. The Campaign works with talk radio hosts throughout California educating listeners about how the federal government is attempting to regulate talk radio and the Campaign is in the process of gathering thousands of signatures from grassroots activists in opposition to this challenge to our our First Amendment rights.
Thomas Del Beccaro
How Republicans Can Stop The Health Care Bill in 3 Steps
by Thomas Del BeccaroThe stakes in the health care debate continue to climb. For the Democrats, they truly are in between a self- imposed Barack and a hard place. If they produce a health care bill that Obama signs over the objections of the American people, they risk losing 55 or more House seats and 8-10 Senate seats. If they don’t push through a bill, they will have angered yet another part of their base.
For the Republicans, any failure to demonstrate a principled resistance to the Democrats will hurt them, in the Fall, among Tea Party voters and their base. If it passes, it will do irrevocable harm to our health care system and the solvency of our government, while hurting the economy and the dollar for decades to come. Worse yet, history has shown that de-nationalizing socialized healthcare is beyond difficult. In other words, hoping for the repeal of ObamaCare is not a good option.
That much danger requires that the Republicans pull out all of the stops to literally stop its passage. As the “final” vote on the bill looms, Republicans in Congress simply must enlist the voice of the American people in their effort and force the Democrats to abandon the bill. Here is a 3 point plan to do just that.
1. Adopt a HealthCare Covenant With America. The existing health care bill represents everything that is wrong with American government today. It is a 2600 page monolith and few have any idea of its true contents – as Nancy Pelosi so eloquently noted (“But we have to pass the [health care ] bill so that you can find out what is in it.”) Republicans quickly and simply must contrast that with a one page charter, contract, or declaration. which sets forth 7 – 10 key reforms in simple straightforward language. The contents should obviously emphasize private sector reforms, such as the promotion of HealthCare Savings Accounts (“HSAs”), coupled with the modernization of government regulations, i.e. updated regulations/laws to allow increased pooling across state lines – all with an eye to addressing the deficiencies of the current health care system.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
With No Primary Fight, Brown Launches ‘Reasonable Jerry’ Tour
by Thomas Del BeccaroNo surprise: Jerry Brown is running for office again. In Jerry’s words, “I’ve run for more offices than any other candidate that still is alive.” This time, he is the lone Democrat candidate running for Governor in California. Since his belated announcement last week, Jerry has done his best to sound reasonable as a candidate. Surely, California voters should know it is only an act.
In running for those many offices, Brown has taken countless liberal positions. As Governor, Brown empowered public employee unions, strongly opposed the death penalty and appointed judges who strongly opposed it. He opposed Prop 13 before he was for it – but only after the voters passed it. When he ran for President, in 1980, he was for universal health care and said his economic agenda was based, in part, on Buddhist Economics – followers of which endeavor to measure “Gross National Happiness.” In 1992, when he ran for the Presidency a third time, he touted “living wages,” fought free trade agreements and said he would consider Jesse Jackson as a running mate notwithstanding Jackson’s controversial if not anti-Semitic remarks. Such is the life of a career liberal like Jerry Brown.
In 2009, while still in the race for Governor, liberal Gavin Newsom said of Jerry Brown’s candidacy: “We’re not content to relive history. We’re going to keep making it.” To ensure that Brown’s latest history would not include a loss to Newsom, Brown resumed his liberal ways.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Jerry Brown Proves He Has Nothing Relevant To Say
by Thomas Del BeccaroIn the category of least surprising, and therefore most anti-climatic, decisions of all time, Jerry Brown announced that he is running for Governor of California. He did so through an Internet video. Certainly I realize how fashionable the Internet is for candidates – but Brown’s choice of venue to announce his campaign was probably less hip than hiding – much like his virtual absence from the campaign trail the last few months.
Quite frankly, the former media-hound Brown has been hiding because he has nothing relevant to say. Indeed, the most important issues of the day all run counter to Jerry Brown’s current policies. Let me count the ways . . .
1. The Budget/Taxes. In this perennial saga, California has yet another $20 billion+ budget deficit. The Democrats and their Union patrons want more spending and higher tax rates. The Republicans, including their statewide candidates and Brown’s Republican opponents, want less spending and lower tax rates. The California voters, according to the Field Poll (never known to lean to the Right), want lower spending not higher taxes. What’s the current version of Jerry Brown to say under those circumstances? Other than saying he will leave it up to the voters to raise taxes (the so-called leader is asking to be led), he has remarkably little to say – and that is one reason he avoids the press and limelight so assiduously – including campaign announcements devoid of those annoying press questions like – would you veto a Democrat sponsored tax increase bill?
2. Jobs. Nevada is the Nation’s #1 business development State. California is either last or second to last when it comes to being employer friendly because of high tax rates and the nation’s most onerous regulatory burden. See the correlation anyone? California, like the nation, faces a simple choice: government jobs or private sector jobs. Government jobs cost money California does not have. Private sector jobs require tax relief and lower regulations. Brown can’t advocate more spending very well and he can’t seriously claim he will go against the unions and the Democrats in the legislature when it comes to taxes and regulations. So what’s the current version of Jerry Brown to say under those circumstances? Remarkably little.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Liberty and Government: An American Tipping Point
by Thomas Del BeccaroThomas Paine said that “It is the duty of every patriot to protect his country from its government.” He did so amidst the long shadow of a centralized government which regarded individual rights as secondary to its own. Today, “56% of people questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey . . . say they think the federal government’s become so large and powerful that it poses an immediate threat to the rights and freedoms of ordinary citizens.” They do so in the shadow of a government seeking to take control of nearly 17% of the US economy, if not that portion of our lives, in the name of caring for our health.
For any that have cared to listen to the debates over multi-trillion dollar spending programs, tax hikes, cap and trade or health care, at issue is not simply whether those huge government programs would provide lasting solutions – they will not – at issue is our basic right to Liberty. Quite frankly, it was never the assumption of the Founding Fathers that it was the role of government to provide a moving target standard of living for Americans. It was their sincere hope that the government of limited powers they set up would allow people to pursue their lives, Liberty and happiness. To do so they, wanted to hamstring government’s ability to act – not ours.
Since then, of course, the scale has tipped in favor of government power over our pursuits. Each step along the way, those concerned with our Liberty have heard the echoes of Senator Daniel Webster when he said:
“Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”
As you consider his words, it may worthy to also consider the lives of Americans, at the dawn of these United States, and the lives of Americans today.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
The Case for Hillary’s Run for Prez in ’12 and Pelosi Retiring
by Thomas Del BeccaroThe 2010 midterm elections are shaping up to be a Democrats nightmare. But the problems for the Democrats and Obama won’t end there. Indeed, the fallout from the 2010 elections will likely carry over into 2012 which may well feature Hillary running against Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s retirement. Here’s why:
1. Republican’s Political Carpe Diem. It appears more everyday that Congressional Republicans are coming to grips with the tide sweeping the Country – Tea Party and otherwise. If Republicans rekindle their successful strategy of 1994, by setting a clear, practical and limited fall election agenda, then they can successfully frame the election debate, and . . .
2. The Democrats Should Lose the House in 2010. As I have chronicled elsewhere, the average loss for the President’s Party in the House, when his approval rating is below 50%, is 41 seats – enough for the Republicans to regain the House in 2010 if that average holds up – and it should. The Democrats are continuing to fight amongst themselves – an acceptable exercise in an off year but not in an election year (as in 1968 for the Democrats). Obama is talking about election year tax increases and using executive powers and a legislative cram down of health care. None of those dynamics bode well for Democrats, will fuel even more voter anger and should actually drive Obama’s ratings down further – keeping the modern string going of no President improving his approval ratings in a midterm election year.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Why Obama Will Be Clinton Without The Comeback
by Thomas Del BeccaroThe retirement of Evan Bayh is the latest heralding of difficult 2010 election year for the Democrats. It is also a symptom of Obama’s mid 40s approval rating. Smart Democrats know that the average midterm election year losses for the President’s party, when his approval rating is below 50%, is 41 seats in the House. Three Presidents in the modern era suffered such a fate – Johnson, Ford and Bill Clinton. Of those three, only Clinton went on to win a second term. While it is likely Obama will suffer huge mid-term losses, it is more than unlikely that he will enjoy Clinton’s revival.
Clinton suffered the loss of 54 House seats in his first midterm election, despite a growing economy, because he broke his middle class tax cut promise – and the Republicans were smart enough to unanimously oppose that and run on the Contract With America. Despite the loss of the House for the first time in 40 years, Clinton won reelection.
Clinton was able to win reelection in part because Bob Dole was not an effective candidate for the Republicans on the tax issue. Clinton also famously triangulated in 1995 and 1996 with the help of longtime strategist Dick Morris. Dropping ideology for practicality, in 1995 and 1996, Clinton pushed a national campaign to prevent teen pregnancy, issued an order clarifying the rights of religious expression in schools, supported uniforms for public schools, banned human cloning, signed Megan’s law and welfare reform to name a few less than ideological triangulations. Even before that, Clinton incurred the wrath of unions by pushing the ratification of NAFTA.
Of course, as the Governor of a swing state, Bill Clinton leaned an early lesson in pragmatism after he was defeated in his bid for a second term. After apologizing for the policies that led to his reelection defeat, he regained the governorship and went on to enact mandatory competency testing for teachers and granted tax breaks to businesses – again with triangulating guru Dick Morris by his side.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
The Official Unraveling of the Obama Presidency
by Thomas Del BeccaroIt can be no secret by now that President Obama did not have a signature achievement his first year in office. Of all his major initiatives, health care, cap and trade, civilian trials for terrorists and the “stimulus” bill – only the so-called stimulus bill was enacted. Hardly a success, as more Americans than not know what Paul Krugman and E.J. Dionne do not – that it was a bad idea. Worse for the Democrats — none of those efforts have produced a greater consensus or momentum for them or Obama. To the contrary, the Democrats lost key races in 2009, a Democrat House Member defected to the Republicans, the nation is more divided than ever and the Democrat Party is in disarray — as in the Obama presidency.
Not to be out-done by 2009, in 2010, the Obama presidency has endured:
(1) the loss of the Kennedy seat (which is how the Democrats view that race) even though Obama stumped for the Democrats’ candidate;
(2) Obama’s deficit commission was shot down;
(3) The unions are warning the Democrats that they are “going to have a hard time getting members out to vote”;
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Steering Clear of Obama’s Bermuda Triangulation
by Thomas Del BeccaroIn the wake of his divisive subpar first year, it is plainly evident that Obama has switched to campaign mode. If we recall that Reagan told us that Democrats campaign for President as moderates and govern from the Left, we understand well why Obama sounded centrist in 2008, pursued a Leftist agenda in 2009 and, in this midterm election year, is now reaching out to Republicans.
We know that Obama has given his Presidential campaign advisor an “expanded” White House role. In addition to that, Obama, in a high profile manner, met with Congressional Republicans on Health Care and is reaching out to them on a jobs bill among other tactics. In the face of such Clintonesque triangulation, the questions become: What should the Republicans do? Meet Obama half way? Stonewall him? Or offer their own agenda? Given that the political handshake can often be the kiss of death, especially in a Tea Party World, Republicans need to go on the offensive by framing the debate if they are going to avoid Obama’s Bermuda Triangulation.
It is essential to note that whoever frames the election debate is the likely winner of the election. Democrats win elections by promoting what government can do in the face of adversity that they blame on capitalism or the market. Republicans win elections by exposing the limits and detriments of government in addition to trumpeting the limitless values of freedom and the American spirit.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
How Many Fights Will Obama Pick With America?
by Thomas Del BeccaroPolitics is a game of addition – successful politics anyway. Great leaders, when faced with a divided electorate, not to mention difficult economic times, use a limited agenda to forge consensus out of broken paradigms. Once they achieve an initial success, they seek a broader consensus. In the 1980’s Reagan faced a divided Republican Party and a fractured and dispirited nation. Concentrating on the prosperity issue and our national prestige, Reagan first brought Republicans together and then independents and even many Democrats. Indeed, so successful was Reagan at bringing people together, that in time he could rely on a group of Reagan Democrats. Few other Presidents have had such success at building consensus let alone are able to claim a voting block from the other party in their name.
There is little doubt that Obama faced a divided electorate when he first took office and a difficult economic climate. Rather than start with a limited agenda designed to build consensus, Obama did the opposite. Obama chased too many rabbits at once and preferred ideological fights over practical solutions. As a result, the Country is more divided than ever – not less.
The most recent manifestation of that divisive M.O. is the White House’s amazing decision to insist on a terror trial in New York. Of course, it remains a jarring ideological decision to treat KSM as a “criminal” versus the warring “terrorist” that he is. As I wrote, in my article Internment, CSI and Eric Holder’s Disarming of America, that decision will have profound negative consequences for decades to come. To the point of this article, Obama is compounding his initial divisive decision (treating him as a criminal) by fighting with New York over the place of the trial. It is a political fight which he cannot win regardless of the outcome of the trial.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Judging Alito – Obama’s Ultimate Arrogance
by Thomas Del BeccaroPresident Obama’s State of the Union obviously was a first in more than one way. Obama point blank, called out (to use the modern vernacular) our Supreme Court Justices on national TV. He did so because he politically disagreed with their legal decision. In doing so, Obama demonstrated his supreme arrogance – and let America know just how far he is willing to go to get his way.
As we know, our Federal Judicial system is one of three separate but equal branches. Historically, the judiciary has been the least political of the three branches. That status reaches well beyond our own system. Prior to judges and courts, civilizations tended to rely on counsels of elders to pass judgment on the actions of their village or tribe. Those elders held a special place, as dispensers of wisdom, in their societies.
The roles of judges today evolved from those wise elders. Importantly, our system and theirs was based on the notion that the decisions made were made dispassionately and not subject to mob rule or pressure. By publicly ridiculing the Supreme Court, and subjecting them to a standing ovation from the complicit Democrats that surrounded them, Obama demonstrated to everyone how little regard he has for our system. That disregard is in keeping with his Saul Alinsky radicalism and the methods he employed.
Obama, to be sure, is not the first President with a constitutional changing agenda to take on the Supreme Court – nor the most crass about it – at least so far. That dishonor belongs to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
2010 Republican Election Message: Clear, Practical and Limited
by Thomas Del Beccaro
The Scott Brown triumph heralds an enormous opportunity for Republicans this fall. As I posited in Part 2 of this series, The Top 4 Things Congressional Republicans Must Do in 2010, in order to make the most of the 2010 elections, Republicans must run on a defined Agenda for the Fall Elections. That Agenda needs to be Clear, Practical and Limited. Here is what I mean:
Clear. In the wake of the Brown election, the Democrats most certainly will have a messy 2010. The Pelosi wing of the Democrats, driven in part by Moveon.org, Emily’s List and others, will continue to push their views and legislation on issues like Health Care, Cap and Trade, Taxes, Afghanistan and more. The Evan Bayh wing of the party, located in swing districts and states and fearful of the message of the Brown election – in order to survive – will have to push back on those Left Wing plans. At worst, that inter-party warfare will be politically very ugly. At best it will portray a Democrat Party with no clear vision for the future. Similar to the fate that befell the warring and splintered Democrat Party in 1968, the Democrat infighting in 2010 will hamstring their election efforts.
That lack of clarity on the Democrats part must be contrasted by a clear governing vision on the part of Republicans. The beauty of the Contract With America, beyond its content, was that it provided a concise and clear Agenda. It told the voters exactly what Republicans intended to do if they won. This Fall, Republicans, in a unified fashion, must do no less than that if they want to take back the House.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
California Democrats Ignore Brown Win: Vote For Bankruptcy
by Thomas Del BeccaroReagan famously said that Republicans believe everyday is the 4th of July and the Democrats believe everyday is April 15th. An oversimplification to be sure, but that sentiment was not far from the minds of the Massachusetts voters. Already laboring under a bad state imposed health care system, in spectacular fashion, they rejected ObamaCare and elected Scott Brown to a “people’s seat.”
In California, that lesson apparently went unnoticed for California Democrats. Less than 48 hours after the dust settled from the Brown triumph, California Democrats voted for a State imposed “universal” health care plan. In other words, a state run health care system that would bar private insurance.
Keep in mind that California is already amidst a chronic and prolonged budget crisis brought on by runaway spending and exorbitant taxing. Perennially listed among the worst states in our Union to do business, California features 10%+ income taxes and the highest regulatory burden around. So imposing are the costs to business in California, despite its ports and natural resources, Nevada and its desert is #1 in the Country in new business development.
As Congressman Tom McClintock famously says, only government policy could convince people and business to relocate from lush California to the barren deserts of Nevada. The practical result of those anti-job polices is that California now has a revenue problem. Just 3 years ago revenues were in the $125 billion dollar range. Now they are in the $85+ billion dollar range. In other words, government has created a revenue problem by killing off jobs and, without those jobs, there are less taxpayers, less income tax and less sales tax.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Between Barack and A Hard Place – The Lesson of ’68 Looms for Democrats
by Thomas Del BeccaroThese may well be the times that try the souls of Democrat politicians.
In the year since Obama took the oath of office, the fortunes of the Democrat Party have changed substantially. Voters, especially Independent voters, now favor Republicans on many issues and in Rasmussen’s Generic Congressional Ballot by 9%. Entrenched Senate Democrats like Christopher Dodd and Byron Dorgan are retiring and now – in no small irony – in the election heard ‘round the world, Scott Brown, campaigning against ObamaCare was elected to “Kennedy’s seat.”
It has been a remarkable turnaround – yet the worse is yet to come for Democrats in office.
Keep in mind that voters turned out the Republicans in 2006 and 2008 in large part because they spent too much, reformed too little and ran up the deficit into the $400 billion range. By the end of the Bush Presidency, economic troubles were mounting and the Republicans had no clear plan for a national recovery.
Today, the incidence of buyer’s remorse for voters over Barack is mounting for all the same reasons and more. Unemployment is at double digits, government reform has been abandoned in favor of unprecedented government spending and the deficit is in the $1.5 trillion range. All of that, with no meaningful recovery in site.
Beyond that, the President has his Party in the stickiest of wickets known to you as the Health Care debate. By allowing Pelosi and Company to write the bill, Obama lost control of the process and now public opposition to the bill is at an all time high. Even so, the Democrat leadership still promises to push it – whether we like it or not.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
The Top 4 Things Congressional Republicans Must Do in 2010 – Part II
by Thomas Del BeccaroThe 2010 elections represent an enormous opportunity for Congressional Republicans. As I pointed out in Part I of this series, The Lessons of ’66 and ’94 Loom Over the Democrats, the average loss for the President’s Party, when the President’s approval rating is below 50%, is 40+ House seats. The past, however, is no guarantee of the future – just a possible guide. If Republicans are to realize the full potential of this election, they will need to overhaul their recent election strategies.
The Top 4 changes they should employ are:
4. Oppose. It has long been said that the first duty of the opposition is to oppose. Given that the outset of 2010 will be dominated by the health care bill which will then give way to a pork barrel “jobs” (read government jobs) bill and then on to cap and trade, immigration/amnesty and then taxes – Congressional Republicans will have ample opportunity to oppose the Democrats’ bad policies. More than merely oppose them, however, the magnitude of the “Change” being pushed by the Democrats requires the Congressional Republicans to demonstrate valor and determination in defeating those measures as if the Constitution depended upon it – because it does.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Lessons of ‘66 and ‘94 Loom Over Democrats: Part I
by Thomas Del BeccaroMidterm elections can present a considerable risk for a new President. Often viewed as a referendum on a President’s policies, the last 45 years featured such huge party losses as 54 House seats under Clinton, 48 seats under Ford, and 47 seats under Johnson. While Ford’s fate was not entirely his own, the fates of Johnson and Clinton present foreboding scenarios for Democrats in 2010.
Johnson and Clinton: Unpopular Policies Lead to Midterm Losses.
In 1964, the Democrats were sitting atop the political world. They held 68 Senate seats and gained 36 House seats for an overwhelming margin of 295 to 140 – not to mention winning the White House. Just two years later, however, they lost 48 seats. Why? A series of policies that were unpopular including a “credibility gap” on the Vietnam War and what one Democrat Governor said was “Frustration over Vietnam; too much federal spending and… taxation; no great public support for your Great Society programs; and … public disenchantment with the civil rights programs.” Despite the economy growing 6% because of the Kennedy/Johnson tax cuts, the divide between Johnson’s policies and public opinion produced a 49% approval rating for Johnson and resulted in historic losses for the President and his party in 1966.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Obama’s World Peace Offensive Yields Few Peace Dividends
by Thomas Del BeccaroOn the foreign policy front, the Democrats for years have blamed America for the actions of rogue nations and dictators. Indeed, as Mona Charen pointed out at length, in her book Useful Idiots, the Democrats have been all too willing to Blame America First for the actions of others. So the storyline goes, when Russia armed itself, it was a justified response to the American arms buildup – as if Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev were otherwise peace loving souls.
No mere academic cheer for Democrats, they have campaigned on their Blame America First theme for years. In the minds of those Democrats, rather than display arrogance, America must be more humble, except blame for World troubles and not seek to impose its view on the world. The latest iteration of that, of course, was Obama’s campaign.
According to Obama, following 9/11:
Millions around the world were ready to stand with us. They were willing to rally to our cause because it was their cause too – because they knew that if America led the world toward a new era of global cooperation, it would advance the security of people in our nation and all nations.” According to Obama, however, the Bush Administration “squandered that opportunity . . . [and] . . . World opinion has turned against us.
What is the cure for such “mistakes,” according to Obama? As we have seen, it is to apologize on his world tours for American actions, to promise to talk directly to dictators, to abandon missile systems, to speak softly in the face of phony Iranian elections and crack downs on dissent, to bow in front of dictators, wear a thin mustache in front Middle Eastern leaders in Egypt, preach global responsibility, promise to close Guantanamo, give rights to Interpol over US territory, and on and on.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Obama Completes the Liberal Hat Trick
by Thomas Del BeccaroIn hockey, rough sport that it is, it is rare that one player scores three goals in one game. They call that a Hat Trick. In the game of politics, Obama now has managed the Liberal Hat Trick in the minds of the American Public. In November, he may just find out how rough politics can be.
Of course, many people have known for a long time just how liberal Obama is and was. There were many warning signs in the last election cycle. The public however, in this slightly Right of Center nation, either was so tired of ineffective Republicans or, with the help of the Media, refused to acknowledge the warning signs. In doing so they elected Obama with 52.9% of the vote – a victory but not an overwhelming victory.
Large margin or not, since being inaugurated, Obama has run quickly to the Left. In doing so, he fulfilled Reagan’s warning that Democrat Presidential candidates run as moderates but are determined to govern more to the Left, i.e. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. The Obama Administration’s response to the terrorist bomb attempt in Detroit completed that process in the minds of the American public.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Obama’s 6 Worst Policy Decisions
by Thomas Del Beccaro
From Guantanamo to Health Care, Obama is certainly seeking to Change America – or more accurately -to accelerate the pace of change from a private enterprise-freedom based civilization to a Big Government-run society. According to Thomas Paine, “It is the duty of a patriot to protect his country from his government.” I realize that is a slightly different definition than Joe Biden would use, but nevertheless, in that light, here is my listing of the worst of his policy decisions:
6. Bailing Out GM. “His policy of public investments prevented necessary liquidations. The businesses he hoped thus to save either went bankrupt in the end, after fearful agonies, or were burdened . . . by a crushing load of debt. [He] undermined property rights . . .pushed federal credit into the banks and bullied them into inflating . . .” Historian Paul Johnson wrote that of Herbert Hoover. You can almost substitute Obama’s name for Hoover’s in every detail. By the way, Government Motors sales are declining at 3 times the rate of the industry as a whole. Hoover would be proud.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Tea Parties, Third Parties and the Republican Party
by Thomas Del BeccaroThe struggles of the Democrats and the Republicans are making news. The Democrats are learning that it is far easier to make campaign promises than it is to govern. As for Republicans, the party that loses the Presidential election often spends the off-year attempting to refine its message if not find a new message and new messengers. In the watchful eye of 24/7 cable news channels and the Internet, however, such political soul searching can appear rather untidy. As the calendar turns, the process remains unresolved for Republicans to say the least. Worse than mere overexposure, according to Rasmussen polling, despite Obama’s falling polls and Democrat divisions, the Republican Party would fare worse in an upcoming election than the Tea Party – a “Third Party” that, as of yet, does not exist. It is no minor issue because with the help of Tea Party activists, Republicans certainly can beat Democrats next year – without them they may not.
It would seem evident to many that the Tea Party movement should be the natural ally of the Republican Party. After all, the issues that inspire most Tea Party activists should not be inimical to Republican Party leaders. However, the fact that the Tea Party movement is at odds with certain aspects of the Republican establishment belies the greater issue as to why the Tea Party movement – and its potential to be a 3rd Party movement – arose at all.
It is worthy, as part of this discussion, to note that the rise and fall of third party movements and candidates is directly tied to whether voters perceive the existing parties as being successful. In this context, successful means providing effective leadership on the major issues of the day.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Where Have the Virgin Deficit Slayers Gone? Or Mr. Rubin, Have You Been ‘Crowded Out?’
by Thomas Del BeccaroToday, Politio reported the the Congressional Democrat Leadership will increase the debt ceiling by $1.8 trillion. There was a time, in Democrat land, that Robert Rubin was thought to be an oracle. During the Clinton years, the Treasury Secretary was so highly regarded that his economic plans were dubbed Rubinomics.
Mr. Rubin, you see, despised long term deficit spending because he believed that it led to higher interest rates over time and therefore a bad economy. It did so, in his view, because deficit spending required excessive government borrowing which adversely competed with and reduced private borrowing which, in turn, led to higher interest rates and “crowded out” private borrowing and investment.
Beyond that, according to Rubin: “ongoing deficits may severely and adversely affect expectations and confidence, which in turn can generate a self-reinforcing cycle among the underlying fiscal deficit, financial markets, and the real economy.” On the other hand, by eliminating deficits, the economy will improve because of lower interest rates, increased confidence and investment.
Following his lead, the Democrats raised tax rates which (a) led to the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994 because they all stood against tax increases, and (b) led to the highest tax burden in US history, and therefore (c) led to the recession of 1999 – which ultimately led to (d) lower revenues.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
|
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?