Wow, another trip away on business and I come back to the left-wing blogosphere going nuts over the latest comments from Congressman Mark Kirk warning that the Obama administration's 'print and spend' monetary policy has got us headed for serious finanical trouble. Hear Kirk explain it all here:
You can read the transcript of the interview here.
But, the spin from the left is that Kirk is anti-American, a traitor, and devaluing America's financial interests and security... because why?... because he came out and told the Chinese what they already knew: the economic policies of the U.S. have this country headed for major trouble if we don't reduce the cycle of borrow and spend that shows little sign of letting up.
Treason??? Really?
Let's get real, folks. Mark Kirk didn't let the cat out of the bag to the Chinese. By all accounts, they may be a lot smarter than we are.
I can remember just a few short years ago when the left considered it 'patriotic' to rail against the Iraq war and President Bush, and to protest the 'unjust' and 'illegal' nature of it all. Now, under President Obama, it seems that the left will take any opportunity to squash dissenting opinions. Others have noticed this. Could this have anything to do with the fact that they are scared to death of Mark Kirk and his chances to take over the "Obama" senate seat?
The good news is, this tactic may well backfire for the Dems. Mark Kirk has now been established as a national expert on finance and especially with respect to the Chinese. He's been put on the same level as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, and the issue is who is being truthful with the Chinese, not to mention the American people. The Chinese response to Geithner when he told them their investments were safe: he was laughed at!!! (as Mark Kirk pointed out, you have to have some appreciation for Asian culture and politeness to realize how shocking it was for an audience to openly laugh at a foreign dignitary).
When you compare foreign policy experience among possible senate candidates, it kinda makes Alexi's highly-publicized junket to Greece to carry Dick Durbin's briefcase look a little silly, don't ya think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
26 comments:
TA,
Great post - Kirk is spot on regarding the Chinese and their lack of confidence in our dollar and our economy. For Democrats to suggest he is un-American is ludicrous.
UnAmerican is a president penalizing hard working families to provide "stimulus funds" to organizations like Acorn, that can get him re-elected.
UnAmerican is a president placing a first lien holder (bondholders of GM) below a junior lien holder (UAW workers). Read the contract clause within the US Constitution.
UnAmerican is a president stating "only government" can fix the financial problem he "inherited". And on Friday, February the 13th, he and his Congress passed a stimulus package that included waste and lots of it. Check out Lou Dobbs website on CNN for the just a taste of it.
UnAmerican is our president and the Democrats that support his vision of destroying our nation and rebuilding a new nation like the kind our founding fathers ran from.
Abraham Lincoln was correct when he stated, "If destruction be our lot, it will come from within. A nation of free men shall last forever or die by suicide."
I felt much more secure and proud of our Country after 9/11 than I do now. Time for another revolution - if we don't fight for our freedom and our Country the Dems truly will destroy it!
One of your best posts yet, TA. Our Congressman is a stand up, most American legislator in the bunch and we should be proud that he represents us. The Democrats, the administration, the lackeys out there who follow blindly like sheep to the slaughter should wake up and understand that the 'train' wreck that this administration is heading us towards is not something to sneeze at. It's real, it's something Mr. Kirk can understand and articulate. To call him other than a great American is just wrong. He tells the truth, period.
I hope that the first response to today's post is not just read by those on your Blog, TA, although that's great. I hope that the poster gets this post into Letters to the Editor all over the district, the State and the nation. That person has stated the case magnificently! And truthfully.
TA-
It is fair to bring potential inflation into the argument; however, the general public (and GOP leaders like rush limbaugh and Dick Cheney) would have slammed Obama if he did not follow through on his promise to stimulate the economy for fear of inflation. The fact is, there are already controls in place through the tax code and the FED that could offset potential inflation.
Although I was happy to see Kirk vote for the State Dept Reauthorization yesterday, we need to be realistic for a second. It may be expected that Kirk needs to prove himself to fellow republicans if he wants to run for Senate, it is resoundingly clear that he has violate his promise to work with the Obama admin and with the democratic house majority. He voted against the stimulus--which provided money now being used on projects in the 10th, and he's opposed: the TARP Reform Act, the Fair Pay Act, and the Budget (Omnibus Appropriations Act). So before we start putting up Kirk for President 2016 signs, keep in mind that there are a lot of people who know that he has pulled the wool over the 10th's eyes when he said on record that he would be more bi-partisan.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
CC, once again you misrepresent Mr. Kirk's votes and his strong commitment to bi-partisanship. He voted against those Bills because they were NOT as indicated, had other crap put into the legislation that made it impossible for him to cast the vote that you Dems want. Mr. Kirk is not a hypocrite. Clean Bills are easy to support. When Dems load them with measures that he will never support, he does the right thing. Kirk is well known in DC as the go-to legislator when bi-partisanhip is needed. It should be the way all Bills are passed into law. If you check you will find that our Congressman has a Democrat co-sponsor for his legislative efforts. You and your buddies will never support Congressman Mark Kirk. We get that. But don't distort his record or what has made him the stand-out 5th term legislator we're proud to represent us. In spite of all the efforts against him, thankfully he prevails in each cycle.
Anon 9:50--
The record shows that kirk voted against 4 of the biggest measures adopted by Congress in this session--especially the landmark Fair Pay Act which helps to guarantee more equal wages for women. If could please:
1. Provide me examples--other than the state dept bill--where kirk broke party lines on a vote.
2. Explain what a Clean Bill is? The fact is that Congress has thousands of earmarks each year, but they only amount to .5% of the budget. Almost every substantive bill contains at least 1 earmark in the text or in the committee report.
I'm don't loathe mark kirk, he's never been anything but nice to me personally. But we have a civic duty to point out misrepresentation, which is why I looked at the clear break between kirk's words and his votes.
Until Next Time,
A Concerned Colonial
CC, are you talking about the Lily Ledbetter issue? You know that the Bill was not clean. It was a move to help the Trial Lawyers and not the women it was supposed to protect. They are and were already protected under existing laws. Crap that's added are 'small tnings' that Mr. Kirk needs to point out to people like you who drink the Kool Aid and don't know what is part and parcel of many pieces of legislation thus rendering them not clean Bills. Send Mr. Kirk a note and ask him directly why he voted against the Lily Ledbetter issue. You'll get the straight answer. Ask him directly on each and every Bill you say he has gone against a promise to be bi-partisan. He has NOT. Go ahead, contact him either on his congresional website which gives you a very convenient place to contact him or call the office and get answers and then let's continue to talk.
Earmarks?
I thought Obama and the Democrats OUTLAWED earmarks!
I mean, they were so dead set against them during the last election!
Louis G. Atsaves
Louis-
Actually, that's not quite correct. While then-Senator Obama spoke out against earmark ABUSE, it was Senator McCain whose every answer to economic and budget questions returned to earmarks. Even though he was more moderate on the question of earmark reform, the Stimulus package, and this is a matter of public record, contained 0 earmarked funds. There were no earmarks in the stimulus bill.
Be wary, also, of criticizing all earmarks in the name of Congressman Kirk. On his re-election campaign website, listed under achievements in Congress, but not under the category "Kirk Legislation in Law and Resolutions Passed," are these nuggets:
Secured full-funding for Metra's North Central Rail Line
Directed the Navy to conduct $3 million environmental cleanup of Vernon Hills Nike Missile site - now clean and serving as a park
Secured funding for reconstruction and widening of Route 60/I-94 interchange
Secured funding to build the Lake County Traffic Management Center
Congressman Kirk is campaigning on both his earmarks and his opposition to earmarks. Quite the fine line.
I understand earmarks was a tangent to the original post, so I apologize for the off-topicery. On topic, now-
From reading a good cross-section of the Democratic-leaning blogs and their coverage of Kirk's statement, it is my understanding that their objection is not to his opposition to the President, and that is certainly not the reason for their heightened rhetoric. Smart Democrats understand that the Donald Rumsfeld rules of public discourse ought not apply in any situation. Anybody who questions the Americanness of someone for civilized disagreement is just plain wrong.
The concern over Kirk's comments, however, addresses itself more to his unfortunate statement to Chinese government officials. Now, I understand that there are some differences between the budget projections from OMB and CBO. Those disagreements are, at this point, the continuation of an ages-old accountant rivalry. When dealing with so many different variables and such large numbers, there are always going to be discrepancies. These have existed under every administration since those entities were created.
While worthy of discussion and debate, these discrepancies in no way excuse Congressman Kirk's message to the Chinese. Here's what he related to the Center for Strategic and International Studies:
"One of the messages I had - because we need to build trust and confidence in our number one creditor - is that the budget numbers that the US government has put forward should not be believed."
The truth is, that sentence is in no way logical, and is based upon false premises. How does casting doubt on our budgetary projections build trust, in any way? More importantly, however, Kirk basically accuses the Obama administration of lying about the budget, with no real proof, and he makes that accusation to senior officials from a country with whom we share a fragile and complex relationship, particularly financially.
The reason for the on-line uproar is that quote in particular, not Kirk's general opposition to the Obama administration. He undermined our relationship with one our most important international interlocutors, and did so to no gain and with no basis in fact. Raising concern over this action is completely logical and appropriate.
CC the fair pay act is crap and typical that a man like yourself would buy into such ridiculous feminist dogma. There's no way a company should have to pay an ivy league educated doctor the same wage as a 2nd tier state school educated doctor just because of her plumbing, or say an old lonely woman who went to a mediocre law school in the city and likes to blog on 10th issues the same wage as a georgetown/lse/cornell educated lawyer.
As for this, TA, good call on Alexi. Dick Durbin should have been investigated for that by the senate as the hatch act prohibits campaign work on government time. Hairball giannoulias will make a tasty piece of meat for the team at the NRSC to slaughter in the coming months.
FOKLAES
Kirk committed honesty when he said that Pelosi would spend more than the congressional budget limit. In past years, the Congressional leadership has always waived the budget and spent more. That record got us into this mess. We need more fiscal conservatives like Kirk who would stick to a budget.
Just saw Alexi Giannoulias send out a statement against Kirk.
I guess Illinois Treasurer Giannoulias wants to distract us from his mismanagement of the college savings Bright Start program. By the auditor's count, Giannoulias lost $80m of Illinois family savings ...and charged his own personal car to their account!
Kirk did not undermine at all. Do you really believe China is so stupid they didn't already figure out they were in way over their heads purchasing our debt?
Come on - Obamanomics has been criticized by Germany, France, Australia and others...this isn't rocket science. The US has some of the most uninformed, uneducated and gullible idiots in the world.
Kirk called it as he saw it - he is a representative of the 10th Congressional District, not Team Obama.
If a Democrat called W.'s policies into question overseas, this would be considered high treason and time for a boycott. (Can you say Dixie Chicks?)
It was untoward for Mr. Kirk to call into question the stability of the US economy (where I note that at least a handful of conservatives are in agreement with this stance) since he did nothing to prevent the current straits from occurring during the W. Administration (can you say unregulated greed and investment instruments?) and since if China gets the heebee geebee's about our ability to repay them, we will be screwed; which appears to be what Rush, Cantor, and Kirk want.
I recall a time when if you were not with the President, that was considered unpatriotic. This idea is the height of elitism and divisiveness.
You cannot have it both ways. If the Dixie Chicks were wrong, surely Rep Kirk - holding a more important position than the Dixie Chicks - was wrong or mis-guided.
If it is wrong to disagree with the President when he is a Republican, it is wrong to use one's position to advance their Party's electoral efforts assuming that their Party is willing and able to put forth decent candidates.
Theories and rhetoric are great. However, when it comes to performance, it is my humble opinion that Republicans on the local, State, and federal level have failed to act in the best interests of their constituents (Ms. Schmidt's Board leadership, Mr. Cross and Mr. Murphy in Springfield, and the born-again fiscal conservatives in D.C.)
I find it ironic that GOP'ers call for 'clean bills' when recent, sensible legislation had a DC concealed carry law attached to it. It occurs to me that if there is sensible legislation under consideration, it is more often than not, that the GOP will attach an irrelevant amendment or provision that makes a clean bill a bit unkempt. Or, if they don't like a Dem-sponsored bill, they will come up with a skeletal, similarly named bill to show they 'agree' with the public on the issue despite voting against the actual legislation.
Its like the GOP is saying we must put government in the hands of the people unless the NRA, banks, pharma, and health insurance companies threaten to whine.
(You remember 'whine,' its what Phil Gramm - McCain's key economic adviser - told us we were doing in the middle of a recession).
I know Tiki,
Obama was for earmarks until McCain was against them. Then Obama was against them. Now he is for them again, or at least not casting any vetoes against them.
If McCain had backtracked like that, do you think the press would have given him a pass like Obama received. Yet the latest rounds of Rassmussen polls confirm the public is turning against "Change We Can Believe In." Turns out the public is no longer believing it. Suddenly they fear big wild spending government. Maybe some day the adoring press will wake up?
Change we can believe in! Obama keeps changing all the time.
Now he will not dictate governments, policies and borders to any foreign countries. Except Israel. He left that one out of his campaign rhetoric too!
Louis G. Atsaves
King Louis,
now that julie hamos is giving up her seat, have you considered a bid for office?
FOKLAES
I know this is poking a lion, but feel oblimigated to post this.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#31334121
Tikkun, and I hate it that you use that identifier because it signifies something quite special. You are not special, have no idea about repairing the world or anything close to that in all that you've posted. But I digress. Can't you or that wack job, Maddow, take thet truth? She seems to think that this was Kirk's first trip to China. She neglects to say that he co-chairs the China Working Group in the US House, has a great deal of credibility with the Chinese. He spoke the truth. Why can't you and your fellow travelers deal with truth? Why can't this administration deal with the truth? Maddow is late with her tirade against Mr. Kirk since he's been back for a few weeks now. I think that you ought to read the very first posting again, and again and then again. I'll stand squarely with Mark Kirk for telling the truth. But you, Tikkun? You can't repair anything if you don't begin from a truthful position.
Rachel Maddow? MSNBC? and you frequent that trash? Serves you right. Come to think of it, perhaps you are really Ellen Beth Shrill. I just noticed that she's doing her usual ranting and lunatic raving about Mr. Kirk. Seems a bit odd that you're both on that 'page'. Regardless, Anon 12:08 is correct to say that the first entry on this topic should be all you need to understand how moronic you, Maddow, Shrill thing over there are when you rail against a more than accurate assessment of the US-China financial situation. What part of being forthright don't you folks seem to respect? Forget it. It's not worth hearing your answers.
Yea, I knew that was gonna cause some trouble. It was 11 at night, there wasn't a basketball game on TV, and there hadn't been any action here in 24 hours. Probably not my proudest moment as a commentator.
It was wrong for me to drop in, without qualification or independent thought, the work of a liberal tv news host. It wasn't meant to in any way reflect my own, much more nuanced opinion on this particular topic. That can be found in my extended comment of 3:20 pm, June 11. So I do apologize for the indulging of a whim, particularly in this public setting.
Anon 12:08-
I understand your questioning of my moniker, considering our apparently divergent thoughts on public policy. However, tikkun olam is a central aspect of my faith, and something I take very seriously. I would imagine, were the nickname somehow inappropriate, our host would ask that I choose another. In lieu of that, I will continue to define myself here by my moral code.
Now, both anonymous commenters attacked my truthfulness, accusing me of misrepresenting facts. I understand our gulf of disagreement concerning matters of subjective opinion, and am wholly conscious of the gray area between fact and opinion. However, I would beg examples of my misuse of empirical fact. I would hope, considering my current academic status, I am still relatively proficient at basic research, and have lived up to a standard of honesty in the representation of the factual in support of my subjective theses. If an example could be delineated, I would be glad to reconsider the point it supports, and apologize for any faulty research.
I actually have read and re-read the first comment in this thread. I feel in my comment of 3:20 I responded to all of the topic-relevant parts of that piece. The only thought I would add is my overwhelming distaste for the call for armed revolution, for what should be obvious reasons.
As to the suggestion that I am Ellen Beth Gill...sorry to disappoint. I am male, and much younger than Ms. Gill.
tikkunolam, I am of your same faith and believe strongly in repairing the world but perhaps in a differing manner. Mr. Kirk is hardly a traitor to our country. He is passionately committed to America, period, no discussion or debate on that point.
You don't approve of Mark Kirk. That's your right. In your post about earmarks you seem to not quite understand that the funds that he garnered for very necessary programs and projects which net him nothing personally, have no way to enrich him personally, are open to all the public scrutiny possible, is vastly different from the earmarks many in Congress for all the wrong reasons.
As to his China comments. Once again, it's his long standing relationship with the Chinese, his co-chairing of the China Working Group with Democrat Rick Larsen, that really obligates him to be open, honest, and above board. What a concept. He stated what the world already knows. I think it's all about truth. Get to know the man behind the name and the title of Congressman. Engage him in conversation. You might find that you have more that you share than what divides you.
How come when anything that you disagree with comes up so does the name Ellen Beth Gill. I read her blog & none of your names ever come up. Evidently she doesn't think about you at all.
Oh contrare, that shrill thing on her blog does nothing but rage and rant about Mr. Kirk because he breathes and lives. Tikkunoalm was always posting on her diatribes against Kirk. She is a very angry, lopsided person with views few share. How do I know that? It's called having Mr. Kirk re-elected every single time he runs. Her misrepresentations, her lunatic ravings and distortions resonate only with very few fellow travelers. I admire TA for allowing all kinds of posts. Even yours.
Ellen thinks about us all the time, that's why she banished us and our rooster whupped her pup.
Rachel maddow is the left version of rush, only with a rhodes scholarship and boy haircut.
quarter 2 fundraising numbers out monday. Will bond have game?
FOKLAES
Anon 11:16-
I've nver commented on Ellens blog, and never echoed her thoughts here. Your statement that I was "always posting" is incorrect.
OMG, sedition, like the whack-a-mole, yet again raises its ugly head. Pretty soon they will be carting off those guilty of speaking freely, God help us all.
Post a Comment