Bill Seubert

Following now-Senator Scott Brown’s supermajority-busting win of TedKennedy’sSeat™ in Massachusetts, the Democrat rats are quickly leaping from the Obama sinking ship. The latest “run away” moment comes on the heels of the Obama FY2011 budget proposal. Unsurprisingly, the POTUS continues his trillion dollar deficit extravaganza, even after his laughable attempt to feign fiscal responsibility by recommending a so-called “spending freeze.” as part of his proposal.  This week, it was revealed that one of the rats abandoning the Good Ship Barry is none other than Missouri’s Democrat Secretary of State and presumptive Dem candidate for Kit Bond’s U.S. Senate seat, Robin Carnahan.

It’s been fun to watch the leftist bloggers lament about how their man-god has betrayed them.  Earlier this week, Robin Carnahan expressed her “disappointment” in Obama’s “lack of fiscal discipline”, and the Huffington Post was right there to document it.  HuffPo quotes Robin:

“From where I stand here in Missouri, I’m disappointed in the President’s budget recommendation. Budgets are about setting priorities and it’s time Washington started making fiscal discipline and tackling the long-term budget deficit higher priorities.

As you might expect, the HuffPo blogger was none too pleased with her newfound opposition to their Fearless Leader

But for an Obama White House that is touting the deficit reducing measures it has thrown into the budget (from spending caps, to prospective cuts in defense programs, to “restoring some balance to the tax code”) comments like Carnahan’s don’t help.

Now you might think that we fiscal conservatives might welcome statements of this kind.  If it came from someone we could trust, that might be the case.  But those of us in Missouri are accustomed to politicians who try to talk a good game, yet plant themselves firmly in Barack Obama’s lap.  Senator Claire McCaskill is a pro at trying to sound tough but she always returns to her leftist voting ways.  Claire makes statements that pretend to be “independent” or “moderate”, yet always manages to vote with the Left, displayed by her none-too-stellar 14% lifetime rating from the ACU.  And Robin Carnahan seems to be following suit – trying to sound moderate…but who believes it?  Surely not those who witnessed her speaking under the Obama Logo

Ms. Carnahan’s rebellion begs the question:  ”what exactly do you oppose from President Obama’s budget?”  She is very nondescript in her opposition. Can she identify specific areas of the budget where she’d like Obama to cut back? What does she find objectionable?  She has yet to oppose any of Obama’s initiatives, such as the failed “stimulus” spending or the near-deceased ObamaCare initiative.  And Robin, have you talked to your bro, Missouri Rep. Russ Carnahan, about this?  I fully expect Robin would be as “low maintenance” as Russ, and certainly she’ll be persuaded to change her tune once Rahm, Robert and the gang hear how she’s wandered off the ranch.

I don’t think that HuffPo’s Stein has much to worry about with respect to Robin Carnahan.  Despite her tough talk, she’ll be back in the fold eventually.  She’s terrified to tell Missourians what she believes because she knows they won’t like it.  That’s why she chooses not to talk about health care or terrorism or any of the policy positions that sunk Martha Coakley in Massachusetts.  She knows that Roy Blunt is far closer to Missourians’ attitudes about fiscal responsibility, with his support for bills such as 2005’s Deficit Reduction Act and his opposition to bloated budgets even during the Bush administration.

But most importantly, we must keep in mind this worth-a-1000-words picture:

It’s a reminder:  the $1.85T deficit is OBAMA’S DEFICIT and Robin Carnahan will support every major Obama program that is generating these massive deficits that are going to bankrupt the United States and burden your children, your grandchildren and their grandchildren for decades to come.

Teh Twitter is abuzz with posts on the rumor that Barack Obama will be announcing a “spending freeze” on discretionary spending during the State of the Union address.  Pay close attention to the words:  discretionary spending.  The word on the street is that his request will exempt “the Pentagon, veterans programs, foreign aid and homeland security” from this so-called “freeze.”  There are a couple of key items to consider:

1. What exactly does he mean by “freeze?”  Does it mean “freeze the level of spending at the bloated 2009 numbers”?  Or does it mean “don’t increase these programs any more in 2010 than we did in 2009?  Or does it mean “stick to historic growth levels, rather than Obama-caliber spending increases”?  Inquiring minds want to know.
2. Discretionary spending means non-entitlement spending.  When you subtract out entitlements:  Medicare & Social Security, and then you subtract defense-related spending, there is precious little left.  In fact, it comes out to less than fifteen percent of the federal budget.*  Barack Obama’s so-called “stimulus” program totaled around $750B – that’s almost 50% greater than the entire non-defense discretionary budget for 2009. Freezing 15% of the federal budget is a drop in the bucket.  (see page 8 of this PDF)

Note one other key item in that Federal Budget PDF document.  As of the year 2017, “Net Interest” – the interest paid on the national debt – exceeds ALL non-military discretionary federal spending.  If Barack Obama wanted to have a real impact on the federal budget, both now and in the future, he would cease and desist from these so-called “stimuli” that are doing little or nothing to fix the Obama Recession.

To propose a spending freeze of any sort is good political theater for Obama, but it will have virtually no impact on the financial standing of the United States of America.

To admit that I voted for a guy who has to do this:

He needs the TOTUS to talk to SIXTH GRADERS???

By the end of next year, the entire country will be wondering how he ever got elected, because no one will admit voting for him.

This past Thursday morning, St. Louis NPR station KWMU reported that Republican Scott Brown’s victory in the Massachusetts Senate race could be “a shot across the bow for Robin Carnahan”, the Democrat competing with Missouri Congressman Roy Blunt (MO-7) for retiring Senator Kit Bond’s seat.  The station said:

Speaking in St. Louis Republican Senator Kit Bond said Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts is further proof that voters do not support the President’s agenda, from bailouts, to cash-for clunkers and most of all the healthcare overhaul. “It should be a wake-up call,” said Bond. “People are tired of government takeover, government takeover, of government taxation. Anybody who is on the wrong side of this issue might want to consider it again.”

It now appears that the polls are agreeing with Senator Bond.  The Missouri Senate race is starting to move strongly in Roy Blunt’s favor, no doubt due in large part to a gradual increase in unease with the Obama/Pelosi/Reid agenda.  Today’s numbers from Scott Rasmussen shows that Blunt has gained eight points on Carnahan, with Blunt leading 49%-43%. Last month, he trailed Carnahan by just two points.

Policy positions are critical in a campaign, and name recognition is a key component of success.  Both the Blunt and Carnahan names are well-known around Missouri. But there is one name that’s known more around Washington DC than the other, and you may be surprised to know whose name that is.  Let’s take a peek…

Robin Carnahan’s grandfather, Albert Sidney Johnson (A. S. J.) Carnahan, was a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from 1944-1946, and again from 1948-1960. He lost in 1960, and was appointed as Ambassador to Sierra Leone by JFK. So A.S.J. Carnahan spent over 16 years as a DC resident and significant player in DC Democrat party politics.

A.S.J. Carnahan’s son, Mel Carnahan, was a prominent Missouri politician, serving as MO’s Lt. Governor and Governor. In 2000, Mel ran for Senate against then-MO Att’y General John Ashcroft. Carnahan was tragically killed in a plane crash weeks before the election, but won anyway, as MO law did not allow his name to be removed from the ballot. Then-Lt. Gov Roger Wilson appointed Carnahan’s wife Jean to serve in his place until a special election in 2002. Jean Carnahan lost to Jim Talent, who served the remaining four years of Jean/Mel’s term.  Mel obviously spent quite a bit of time in DC even prior to his Senatorial run, as he was a graduate of GWU, where he met Jean.

Mel and Jean Carnahan’s son Russ Carnahan is currently serving in the U.S. House of Representatives, representing MO-3 (south portion of the St. Louis area, through Jefferson Co, to Ste. Genevieve.  This is the same seat that Russ’s Grandpa A.S.J. held (and he also serves as the vice chair of the International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight subcommittee – his grandpa’s subcommittee).  Russ is known as a reliable left-wing vote in Congress, and one of Russ’s “Town Hall” meetings were the site of the notorious SEIU union thug beating of Kenneth Gladney.  Russ’s biggest accomplishment appears to be his nomination as “Porker of the Year” by CAGW.  His tenure in the House has shown him to be rather hapless.  He’s earned the title “Low Maintenance Russ,” a name supported by none other than Nancy Pelosi herself, based upon her comments that Russ is “not a high-maintenance type”.  Russ has a pretty solid reputation as one who blindly supports pretty much anything that Pelosi throws at him.

And that brings us to Russ’s sister – Missouri’s current Secretary of State, Robin Carnahan, the latest member of the Carnahan dynasty to seek office in DC.  Some might think that Robin has no background in DC politics, but they would be wrong.  Ms. Carnahan served as an “executive” with the Export-Import Bank of the United States and did work with the National Democratic Institute…both Washington, DC entities.  In fact, she joined the Ex-Im Bank in 1993 – four years before her Senate competitor Blunt was elected to the House.  We have a list of her addresses where she lived in DC, so she has had extensive presence there in the past.  So while Robin Carnahan is currently a Missouri state official, she is no stranger to the DC world and culture.

It’s surprising to hear accusations of Roy Blunt’s family as any kind of “dynasty” when Congressman Blunt is the first of the family to spend significant time in DC, beginning with his election to the House in 1996.  Contrast with the Carnahan family, who has significant DC presence back into the 1940s.  Now who is the dynasty?

Robin Carnahan has yet to reveal much in the way of positions on key national issues.  However, she’s already been endorsed by unions and groups such as Emily’s List, a pro-abortion political advocacy group.  While she (unsurprisingly) has not explicitly stated her position on the bills in the Senate and House, she spoke out in praise of the bill passed in the Senate in December.  She DID state earlier this year that we need to “get past Guantanamo” – a veiled approval of Obama’s generally unpopular policy of moving prisoners and treating them as criminals rather than terrorists.  She has held no campaign news conferences, issued no policy position statements, and has generally sequestered herself in the safety of her Jefferson City office.  No one knows where she is or what she thinks.  But based on her background, it is a pretty sure bet that she will continue to be an unfailing supporter of Barack Obama and his policies.  If elected, Robin Carnahan would soon become known as “Rubber Stamp Robin” – as much of a lapdog to Barack Obama as brother Russ has been in the House to Nancy Pelosi and Obama.

Judging from the outcome of the Massachusetts Senate election, Robin’s close ties to Obama policies and ideas during the election campaign will be a very bad thing for her.  To characterize Robin Carnahan as some sort of “DC outsider” who will bring a “fresh view” to the seat is ludicrous.  She is fully saturated with the DC mindset.  She’s lived it throughout her life.  But the Carnahan DC Dynasty is about to come to an end.

(originally posted at Redstate.com)

“Blame Bush” has been Obama’s favorite strategy for trying to deflect blame for his mishandling of virtually every challenge he’s faced since ascending to his throne almost one year ago.  But is this approach still resonating?  I think not.  Obama refuses to stop blaming his predecessor for his own shortcomings. The latest blame-fest came with the December 25th pantybomber incident.

Immediately following the Christmas terrorist attempt by Omar Abdulmutallab, the Obama administration sprung into action in an attempt to pass the buck to Bush.

“The idea was that we’d show that the Bush Administration had had far worse missteps than we ever could,” says a staffer in the counsel’s office. “We were told that classified material involving anything related to al Qaeda operating in Yemen or Nigeria was fair game and that we’d declassify it if necessary.”

“This White House doesn’t view the Northwest [Airlines] failure as one of national security, it’s a political issue,” says the White House source. “That’s why Axelrod and Emanuel are driving the issue.”

The official White House blog reflects the Obama strategy to place the blame on Obama’s predecessor.  How ironic is it that an official WH blogpost with the title “The Same Old Washington Blame Game” would be so focused on blaming another POTUS for the shortcomings of their own administration?

So, Obama’s entire strategy for responding to the terrorist incident has been to be Not Bush.  Byron York illustrates:

Obama’s first response to the incident, or nonresponse, did not surprise anyone who followed his 2008 presidential campaign. As a candidate, Obama repeatedly accused the Bush administration of using terrorism to spread fear among the American public for political gain.

“Since 9/11, we’ve had a president who essentially fed us a politics of fear,” Obama said at a December 2007 Democratic debate in Iowa. “We have been governed by fear for the last six years,” he said two months earlier in Philadelphia. “We’re tired of fear,” he said still earlier at a debate in South Carolina.

Obama pledged a new, quieter approach. He would improve America’s image in the world, reach out to Muslims and dial back the fear.

So when a radical Islamist Army officer shouting “Allahu Akbar!” murdered 13 of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, Obama’s response was so low-key it took him days to recognize it as a terrorist incident. And when a radical Islamist Nigerian nearly succeeded in detonating enough explosives to bring down a Northwest Airlines jumbo jet as it approached Detroit, Obama remained silent.

(and thanks to Mr. York for the title idea…)

Obama mouthpiece/DNC Chair Chris Van Hollen was a bit less vague about his part in the blame game:

“In general, we are facing the consequences of the Bush administration’s failures to deal with al Qaeda,” Van Hollen told Hotline OnCall. “The Republicans have no business in pointing fingers at the Obama administration on terrorism and national security.”

“The Obama administration has been much more aggressive about going after al Qaeda than the Bush administration, which turned its focus from al Qaeda to Iraq,” he added. The Obama admin has “been on the offense in places where the Bush administration had taken its eye off the ball.”

But perhaps the crowning glory of the O came during today’s meetings and brief speech, where he stated that the terrorist incident was “a screwup” by “U.S. intelligence”…and then proceeded to declare that there will be “no finger-pointing”.  Eh?  Is that not what you just did, Mr. President?

At what point does Obama start accepting responsibility?  After we boot him from office (probably not even then)?  I have frequently adopted Gerald Warner’s nickname for Obama – “President Pantywaist” – to reflect his utter lack of courage in governing.  The presidency is a big political game for President Pantywaist.  He does not possess the courage to lead and accept the consequences of failure.  Instead, he prefers to take the advice of Rahm Emanuel and “not let a crisis go to waste” – and he leverages these crises politically, rather than worrying about their impact on America.  The Heritage Foundation accurately describes Obama’s cowardice in this area of national security and dealing with terrorists, after previously criticizing Bush for his approach:

During the campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama often criticized President Bush for “going it alone” and just this past May, President Obama promised: “I will work with Congress and members of both parties, as well as legal authorities across the political spectrum, on legislation to ensure that these commissions are fair, legitimate, and effective.”

The Obama administration’s decision not to seek congressional authorization for military detention exposes a lack of political courage to stare down the extremists in his own party and do the right thing for American security.

I think we can safely say that Harry S. Truman’s famous sign “The Buck Stops Here” has been replaced in the Oval Office by one stating “The Buck Stops In Crawford, Texas”.

A quick search of the Interwebs for the term “political suicide” will return a significant number of stories on the pending Democrat-pushed healthcare “reform” legislation and their seemingly inexplicable political death spiral. Virtually every poll says that the public rejects the bills in the Senate and House, Barack Obama’s popularity is tanking, and virtually no one on the Right OR the Left is happy with them. So the natural question is: Why are the Democrats pushing this?

The characterization of the Democrats’ actions as “political suicide” is somewhat inaccurate. It would be more apt to call it “political hari-kari”, as the Democrats believe that passing this legislation is the honorable thing to do. They believe that this is the political equivalent to Grandma’s spoonfull of castor oil – something that we don’t want but they’re doing because it’s good for us. This week, in an article titled “Why Democrats push health care, even if it kills them,” Byron York quoted a Democrat strategist:

“Because they think they know what’s best for the public,” the strategist said. “They think the facts are being distorted and the public’s being told a story that is not entirely true, and that they are in Congress to be leaders. And they are going to make the decision because Goddammit, it’s good for the public.”

Of course, going forward has turned out to be harder than many Democrats thought. And now, with various proposals lying wrecked along the road, the true believers are practicing what the strategist calls “principled damage control.”

The Dems believe that once healthcare fascism socialization rationing reform is passed, we’ll come to love it, just as we have with Social Security and Medicare. We’ll figure out that it really WAS good for us. And incredibly, they believe that not only will it be good for us, but it will win them seats in 2010.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been telling Democrats a win on the health issue will reverse the slide in public opinion, just as passage of another controversial proposal, the North American Free Trade Agreement, lifted President Bill Clinton in the polls.

The apparent success by Senate Democrats this weekend in securing the necessary votes to pass a sweeping overhaul of health care before Christmas will offset setbacks on climate change and financial industry regulation, Democrats say.

“The reality, I think, will trump poll numbers in the dead of winter as this debate is going on,” White House senior adviser David Axelrod said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”

“We’re governing through difficult times,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “I think we’re going to be in a better place” when the midterm elections arrive.

Read more »

After I posted a story about how there is virtually no one in the Obama administration with private sector business experience, I began to further consider the practical implications of this.  Intuitively, one would conclude that a group of policymakers who don’t understand business and capitalism probably would not have a clue about making public policy that is friendly to business.  And indeed, this appears to be the case.  At every turn, the Obama administration is promoting legislative action that is harmful to businesses – new taxes, regulations and other economically harmful policies.

This ignorance of what drives the private sector was proven by Barack Obama himself this week, at his so-called “Jobs Summit,” where the POTUS stated:

Despite the progress we’ve made, many businesses are still skittish about hiring. Some are still digging themselves out of the losses they incurred over the past year. Many have figured out how to squeeze more productivity out of fewer workers. And that cost-cutting has become embedded in their operations and in their culture. That may result in good profits, but it’s not translating into hiring and so that’s the question that we have to ask ourselves today: How do we get businesses to start hiring again?

Heaven forbid! Productivity? Profits? Does Mr. Obama believe that businesses exist to hire people? I’m sorry, sir, but it is ALL about the profits. Productivity, and in turn, profitability, is improved either by enabling a constant number of people to produce more, or by reducing the number of people and maintaining constant production. New hiring may improve producTION, but not necessarily producTIVITY. Obama’s ideology, like that of his staffies, is disconnected from the realities of a capitalistic economy. And the policies he supports are similarly disconnected.

Read more »

(Apologies to Irving Berlin)… We knew that Barack Obama was turning DC into a mecca for sucking at the public teat, but it perhaps was not as obvious until recently as to what extent this is occurring.  RedState member Fred Maidment sent this blog entry from The American to me this morning. It illustrates the depth to which Obama is influenced on “governmentalization” of the private sector.  The graphic tells it all:

Unsurprisingly, the low points come during the Democrat(ic) Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and Obama administrations. But the dearth of private sector experience in the Obama cabinet is almost breathtaking. As Nick Schulz notes, “over 90 percent of its prior experience was in the public sector”. Wow.

It shouldn’t be a “wow” moment, though. The Obama administration is promoting exactly what we have suspected it would – elimination of private sector industry in favor of government control. From banking to automotive to health care to “net neutrality” – the government takeover is already well under way. And we shouldn’t be surprised – they’re just doin’ what comes naturally.