Gay Patriot Header Image

The Crux of Obama’s Case for his “Stimulus”

We need action now.  Congressional Democrats have cobbled together a comprehensive plan.  I support this plan.  Unless you support it too, you favor doing nothing and so prolonging the recession.

As Fred Barnes puts it, “The more public support his bill loses, the more Obama embraces fear-mongering. ‘The failure to act, and act now,’ the president said last week, ‘will turn a crisis into a catastrophe.’

Rich Lowry believes Obama’s central argument for the “stimulus, “I won,” “is a symptom of the intellectual collapse of the case for his stimulus bill, a congressional spendfest untethered from its stated goal of providing a rapid ‘jolt’ to the economy.“  Rich also observes how the president’s campaign rhetoric which would suggest opposition to such as spendthrift package.

(H/t for the links to Jennifer Rubin’s daily compendium at Commentary Connections, Flotsam and Jetsam.)

Victory to Democrats Means Opposition Must Cease

In a comment to my post on the president’s divisive rhetoric, Kurt calls the Democrat’s retreat into “attack mode . . . a major tactical win for the Republicans:”

After all, many Republicans warned that Obama had no record of bipartisanship time and again during the election. And here he and his party’s leaders are whining that they’re not getting Republican support for their porkfest bill—this after he turned away Republican suggestions about the stimulus by saying “I won” during his first week in office.

He’s right. It was a tactical win for the GOP.

And it’s more than just that. It’s a defining moment of the Democrats’ arrogance. Note how when, even when Democrats are in the majority, their defenders blame Republicans for their setbacks. Did conservatives so blame Democrats when, four years ago, they thwarted many of Bush’s efforts at reform? (Yes, I realize that in writing this, after we realized the consequences to pass Republican legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, we did fault Democrats for successful efforts to thwart those reforms.)

It’s as if Democrats believe their victory means they can govern without opposition, while Republican victory means that the GOP must be opposed. To wit, the president’s statement to elected Republicans (who also won their respective elections) that “I won.”  Imagine how Democrats would have reacted if his predecessor had said that.

Democrats act, in Jonah Goldberg’s words, as if their victory “settles the issue. Funny how that argument didn’t work for the last president when he tried to reform Social Security.

Obama: Guilty of Bush’s Alleged Sins

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 5:14 pm - February 7, 2009.
Filed under: Bush-hatred,Obama Worship & Indoctrination

Welcome Instapundit Readers!!. While you’re here, check my post on how Democrats believe their victory means that opposition to their policies must cease. And please help me find the best short summaries of the “stimulus.”

Once again, President Obama appears to be guilty of the sins of which his predecessor was accused, in many cases by those who would come to support the Democrat.

Commenting on the president’s praising the “patriotism” of Republicans backing a compromise “stimulus” package, John Hinderaker asks:

So, if the three Republicans who sided with the Democrats in the Senate are “patriotic,” what does that make the rest of the Senate Republicans, or the House Republicans who unanimously voted against the Democrats’ pork-fest? Unpatriotic? Isn’t that a natural inference?

In a similar vein, Tom Maguire wonders if the president is saying that “bill opponents are not patriotic? Or are less patriotic?” And he asks for “analogous examples” of such definitions of patriotism (as support for president’s proposals) “from the Bush era.”

For the record, I think he’ll be hard-pressed to find them in the statements of the former president.

Best Short Summary Summaries of “Stimulus”

Dan Cleary: Mind-Boggling Waste of Money We Don’t Have (Via Instapundit).

Please feel free to offer your own, including those you have found on other web-sites (with appropriate credit including links).

UPDATE: More pithy critiques below the jump: (more…)

The Best Thing Barney Frank Could Do For Gay People . . .

. . . would be to, without fanfare, retire from Congress, move to Miami Beach and keep away from all microphones, refraining from making any further public comment.

Not content to limit the salaries of financial institution executives receiving federal bailout money, that self-important House Financial Services Committee Chairman with an incapacity to admit mistakes now seeks to extend those salary curbs. So, even if you don’t take federal money, if ol’ Barney had his way, the feds could dictate your salary:

Congress will consider legislation to extend some of the curbs on executive pay that now apply only to those banks receiving federal assistance, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank said.

. . . .

He said the compensation restrictions would apply to all financial institutions and might be extended to include all U.S. companies.

(H/t: The Corner via Instapundit).

Barney Frank, the most prominent openly gay person in American politics today, is becoming an embarrassment.  He favored rolling the dice with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, obstructing efforts to reform these two government-sponsored enterprises even as evidence of their financial woes became increasingly manifest.

Look, Mr. Frank, you’ve had more than a hand in the financial mess.  And you continue to promote schemes which would only serve to limit our freedom and hinder further economic growth.  You can’t admit your mistakes.

So, please, for the sake of America and for the sake of gay people, just leave.  We don’t want people to think that you speak for gay people;  you refuse to take responsiblity for your actions and attempt to further socialize our economy.

UPDATE:  As per comment #2, please note that I struck I word in the first full paragraph after the block quote.  Reader GUS, with inflammatory language expressing his outrage, ask if Barney said anything “about Jamie Gorelick making over $20 million from Fannie Mae.”  If he didn’t, it’s a sure sign of his hypocrisy.

Jim Carrey Explains the Stimulus

Thanks to Dan for finding this at The Club for Growth’s website.   It pretty much sums it up.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)