Joe Pyrah is on to some things.
But what about the assessment that Utah won't go too far right?
I can't claim to be any expert on the moods and attitudes of Utah. Still, it seems to me that Utah is not necessarily what it appears on the surface.
Look at what Marxists might call the objective situation: General Motors nationalized! The banks cowed and cowering. The health system next.
I'll just mention Iran and North Korea having/working on nuclear weapons.
So the situation, from a conservative point of view, is desperate, tea parties or not.
So is Bob Bennett a guy for such a time?
Forgive the martial metaphor, but in the military there's a time for desk generals and a time for fighting generals. Grant, Sherman, Patton, Billy Mitchell -- these guys are just trouble in peace time, and what good are they then? But in war time ...
If you don't like martial metaphors, think of the difference between entrepreneurs and managers, or inventors and technicians.
So is a "peacetime" senator right for the times?
Conservatives would say no. They might say -- so what good is dickering in D.C? So the government only owns 65 percent of GM rather than 70 would be significant? Big deal!
Hard to say what's going on, in Utah or nationally. Or whether it can get 50 percent of the vote.
Still, are we in one of those watershed times? And can Bennett or other standard-issue Republicans survive?
But, however, can Shurtleff or others beat him? Can't beat something with nothing.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Drill, Sarah, drill!
We can save the economy. If we only try!
From IBD:
... it was thought that Chukchi's waters northwest of Alaska's landmass held 30 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
From IBD:
... it was thought that Chukchi's waters northwest of Alaska's landmass held 30 billion cubic feet of natural gas.
Today, Science magazine reports that the U.S. Geological Survey now finds it holds more than anyone thought — 1.6 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered gas, or 30% of the world's supply and 83 billion barrels of undiscovered oil, 4% of the global conventional resources.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Well, which is it?
From Atlantic, on North Korea:
... Washington will have no choice but to deal with him directly, rather than merely as one party among several in the multilateral talks that have characterized negotiations with North Korea since 2003.
BUT
Now is not the time for unilateral threats. The disaster in Iraq should be foremost in our minds when dealing with North Korea. And that means, hard as it may be to swallow, working with Beijing.
... Washington will have no choice but to deal with him directly, rather than merely as one party among several in the multilateral talks that have characterized negotiations with North Korea since 2003.
BUT
Now is not the time for unilateral threats. The disaster in Iraq should be foremost in our minds when dealing with North Korea. And that means, hard as it may be to swallow, working with Beijing.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Health care, the bottom line
From Kausfiles:
Why don't Democrats instead push to provide everyone with health care using the argument that ... everyone needs health care? ... Just a thought
So ... everybody needs food. So have the government be in charge of providing food!
Ooops, it's been tried, with not so good results. (Google "Communism, famimes")
I hurry to add that Kaus makes good points. There's no arbitrary percentage of national income that should or should not be spent on health.
And there is huge waste -- even conservatives admit that.
But who decides? And how?
The key element is what's productive. Good health care could be productive.
Bad health care ... Like, say, Medicare ...
Why don't Democrats instead push to provide everyone with health care using the argument that ... everyone needs health care? ... Just a thought
So ... everybody needs food. So have the government be in charge of providing food!
Ooops, it's been tried, with not so good results. (Google "Communism, famimes")
I hurry to add that Kaus makes good points. There's no arbitrary percentage of national income that should or should not be spent on health.
And there is huge waste -- even conservatives admit that.
But who decides? And how?
The key element is what's productive. Good health care could be productive.
Bad health care ... Like, say, Medicare ...
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Painful truth on spending
Note more media incompetence, if not outright fraud, in reporting much-touted health care saving:
Turns out that's not what the groups said at all. In their letter to Obama, they promised to "do our part to achieve your Administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points annual health-care spending growth rate -- saving $2 trillion or more." Of course, their part of that savings may be significantly less than the full $2 trillion. The groups offered no further specifics. And, anyway, there would be no way to enforce such a hazy commitment.
Turns out that's not what the groups said at all. In their letter to Obama, they promised to "do our part to achieve your Administration's goal of decreasing by 1.5 percentage points annual health-care spending growth rate -- saving $2 trillion or more." Of course, their part of that savings may be significantly less than the full $2 trillion. The groups offered no further specifics. And, anyway, there would be no way to enforce such a hazy commitment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)