About Me

Name: Josh Todd
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Archives

Blog Roll

 

Of Presidential Politics and Bailouts

Earlier this week, Democrats basically told John McCain to leave Washington because he was injecting presidential politics into the proposed banks bailout.

Then, in Washington, a closed-door meeting took place involving the President, Democrat and Republican House and Senate leaders, Hank Paulson, and the presidential nominees. In that meeting, unidentified sources reported a scene where this discussion was turned over to Barack Obama, who harangued the Republicans in the room.

Later, we learned that there really was no tentative deal to begin with. In fact, Republican Congressman John Boehner said his caucus was excluded from negotiations.

Friday, Democrats emerged with a tentative plan, but they were demanding GOP support, claiming that John McCain—who scarcely got in a word at the closed-door meeting—and House Republicans were destroying the deal.

But if the bill was so great, why didn’t House Democrats pass the bill anyway, for they had the votes to do it with a party-line vote? Perhaps the Democrats knew the massive bailout bill was not so great and wanted to be able to hide behind bipartisanship.

Over the weekend, the parties reached an accord, and by all accounts, the Democrats got everything they wanted while the GOP got very little.

This morning, on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, the first words out of Senator John Kerry’s mouth consisted of…presidential politics. Kerry baited GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham into a presidential politicking punch-out.

So, while the verdict is still out on the bailout, the fact is that Democrats are grasping for any political gain necessary while strong-arming the GOP caucus. And because the Administration proposed the original bailout (hence, not a Democrat plan), it will be viewed as a bipartisan deal. And it was the Democrats who turned the bailout into a presidential political debate.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Rising Home Values in Dayton

Due to Hurricane Ike, IV, I have not written in quite some time, but a notice I received in the mail yesterday has the juices flowing again.
 
It seems that my house is worth roughly ten percent more than it was a few years ago. It's a miracle! Dayton, Ohio is a rising real estate market again!
 
Montgomery County Auditor Karl Keith, a Democrat, naturally, sent the notice that my property had been appraised for purposes of taxation (well, his office sent it, not Keith personally). I was informed that an anomaly had occurred: appraisers found quite a boost in my property value.
 
The problem here is that the entire Dayton metro area is a declining market in regard to home values. It's so bad, in fact, that lenders in the area are reluctant to think about considering thinking about writing home loans above 80% loan-to-value. And no, that sentence is not a typo.
 
Yet, Karl Keith has decided to give us all a gift by raising our home values by government fiat. But then again, that's what the Democrats do: they care so much that they will dictate what happens, even if it hurts in the long term.
 
Take, for example, the Clinton justice department, the Community Reinvestment Act (signed by Jimmy Carter and expanded under Bill Clinton), Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae all contributing to a condition wherein mortgage lenders were bullied into lending to unqualified borrowers. Then, those mortgages were sold and packaged into securities to be sold so lenders could write more home loans, thus adding liquidity to the market and increasing home ownership.
 
Later, inadequate borrowers took out loans they could never repay and lenders lent because they could sell the loans and not give a damn about what happened later because the buck was passed. The result is what we endure now: rampant foreclosures, tight credit, creeping government regulation (because of government regulation), and declining home values--once the certain good investment.
 
Nonetheless, Karl Keith and the Montgomery County Democrats have saw to it that they raise my taxes again, this time undemocratically, because their revenues are declining because their wrong-headed policies caused an economic mess...ugh.
 
 
 
 
[NOTE: Please realize that the run-on sentences contained in this piece were crafted intentionally for effect.]
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palin for Veep

Before last week, my wife wasn't going to cast a vote for a president this year. She will still vote for other candidates, just not for president.
 
There is no way in hades she would ever vote for someone as liberal as Barack Obama, and she was sufficiently unhappy with John McCain as to not vote for him. But with this decision came a quandary.
 
I had written earlier this year about a conversation we had, which went something like so: "Honey," I asked, sarcastically, "Are you going to help elect Barack Obama president?"
"No," she spat back.
 
"So you're going to help elect John McCain president?"
 
"No."
 
"So you're going to help elect Barack Obama president?"
 
Basically, that's how it would have worked. Enough conservatives disliked John McCain that, if they didn't vote for president at all, they would have helped elect Barack Obama by default. My how things change in a matter of weeks.
 
With the selection of Sarah Palin as his Vice Presidential running mate, John McCain has now activated conservatives like my wife. She will now vote for Senator McCain.
 
But in reality, she won't be voting for John McCain. Instead, she'll be voting for Sarah Palin for Vice President.
 
When the subject of bumper stickers and t-shirts arose, she spoke on behalf of a lot of conservative voters. Her bumper sticker, she told me, would say, "Palin for V.P."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Racism and Politics

It's about time we just admit: it's about ideology and policy, not race.
 
Media stories and Democrats railing about the lack of diversity in the Republican Party, the subliminal racism in the GOP, and the inherent bigotry of conservatism are quite common, particularly during an election cycle. And while there certainly exists racism in our country, conservatism and the Republican Party are not about race.
 
Certainly some politics in the past included racial fear-mongering, but those days are past. In fact, certain GOP ads and rightist PAC ads have been deemed racist (e.g. a rightist PAC ad from the last election cycle about Harold Ford, showing a white, blonde woman gushing over Ford, was slammed as racist); thus, even if conservatives and Republicans--not always one in the same--were putting out racist spots, they couldn't get away with it.
 
Democrats and their ideological brethren in the media are usually making the accusations because the Democrat Party has a practical monopoly of minority votes (approximately 90% of black voters and more than 50% of Hispanic voters typically side with the Democrats); therefore, it's good politics to race bait and call the other fellow (the GOP) racist, xenophobic, etc.
 
But is it true?
 
While Democrats and their allies will trumpet examples of racism from conservatives or Republicans, the fact is that the GOP is simply not racist and is not under the control of rich, white racists. In fact, it is becoming more and more common to find prominent minority Republican candidates (Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swan, Michael Steele, etc.) and other minorities in positions at the more local level (e.g. Don McLaurin, the black Republican former mayor of Trotwood, Ohio, a predominately black suburb of Dayton).
 
On the contrary, one will find vigorous opposition, from the left, to these minority (particularly black) Republican candidacies and nominees. Clarence Thomas was a bad choice for the Supreme Court. Miguel Estrada would have been bad, too. Ken Blackwell and Lynn Swan were the wrong choices were governor. So on and so on... Does this mean that Democrats and the media are racist? Hardly.
 
It's time that we all admit that Democrat opposition to Ken Blackwell was ideological and policy-based (that is, based on party) and that Republican opposition to Barack Obama and other minority candidates is likewise rooted in ideology and policy differences. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to joke that the NAACP is really the NAALCP, or the National Association for the Advancement of Liberal Colored People; for, if they were really for the advancement of all colored people, then they wouldn't have opposed the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. They did so because Clarence Thomas was not liberal.
 
In other words, Democrats should quit race baiting and pretending that the American Right is plum full of bigots. Unfortunately, however, they will not for fear of losing all of those votes to the Republican Party.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »