Saturday, February 14, 2009

The Biggest Loser

If I had to vote for the biggest loser of the week, it would be a really difficult choice for whether my vote would go to Senator Judd Gregg or the Republican Party.

I mean we already know that the Republican Party is a bunch of "do nothing" obstructionists, who are supposed to be representing the American People in their States, but instead they are filled with nothing but quest for power (re-taking in 2010) and grand-standing. The peer pressure in their own party is worse than High School. They are crowing about the fact that Not a SINGLE REPUBLICAN in the House voted for the Stimulus Bill. In the Senate, there were only 3 who broke to vote in favor of the Stimulus.

But don’t try telling Republicans that. They’re downright giddy with their obstructionist tactics. “Insurgency, we understand perhaps a little bit more because of the Taliban,” bragged Rep. Pete Sessions (Texas), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “And that is that they went about systematically understanding how to disrupt and change a person’s entire processes."
Seriously?? This Republican Congressman is giddy with the idea that they are applying something that they learned from the Taliban. If I were a member of the Republican Party, I'd tell this guy to "STFU - because you're embarassing us".

This makes it clear to the American people, that it wasn't about country or the well-being of the American People, it was all about toeing the party line. Statistically it doesn't add up, if every one was voting their conscious, you would expect some sampling of members on either side voting against their party - we see this with 7 Democrats who voted agains the Stimulus. But the fact that you have NO Republicans voting for the Stimulus in the House, indicates a systematic behavior - completely manufactured.

Watch this exchange between Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fl), who totally owns Congressman Brian Bilbray (R-CA). She basically makes him look like a sputtering idiot, which I guess was not too difficult, as that's what he is.

So since this is a constant display of sophmoric behavior by the Republican Party, I'm going to have to go with Senator Judd Gregg - who I didn't have a great deal of knowledge about in the past - but what a spineless speciman of a human being. The fact is, he could have done something great, he could have put country before politics, and put his so called "business acumen" to good use in the Commerce Department, as Secretary of Commerce.

But then he goes and does two things:

  1. First he says that he will abstain on the stimulus vote as he is Secretary Designate for the Commerce Department, and sites conflict of interest
  2. Then he withdraws his nominee as Secretary of Commerce, because he "couldn't be Judd Gregg".
Excuse my French, but "WTF????" It sounds like something some middle-aged guy or alternately some lame thing a girl might say when he/she wants out of a relationship. The feeble "it's not you, it's me - and I need to find myself" crap that men or women with no integrity or courage say to get out of a relationship.

So either he is STUPID or he has NO COJONES - so which is it?

Of course he is trying to back pedal and save face, saying that he didn't lobby for the position. But let's face it, he wouldn't have reached the notice of the President without Senator Harry Reid to recommend him, and why would Senator Reid do anything on his behalf, unless he was requested to by Senator Gregg?

So anyone applying for a job, should know what they are getting into, and he more or less accepted the position. To accept, and then turn around and say that it would not be a good fit, is an act of a total moron.

If I were President Obama, I wouldn't give this guy the time of day ever again. This happened to me once. I was extremely supportive towards a colleague who reached out to me, and expressed strong interest in a position. We spoke for months, keeping in contact about possible openings, then when an opportunity did come up, I lobbyied on his behalf, and when I extended the position to this candidate, he expressed doubt. After several days of thinking things through, he declined the position, even though we had talked for months about the possibility of him joining the organization. Then not 24 hours later after he declines the position, he calles me back and tell me that he changed his mind. Automatically, I told him, that the position was being offered to someone else, and that it was too late - because it was. Just because he was being "wishy-washy", didn't mean that I was going to be dragged along as well.

So how is it that he couldn't align or agree to what the position would be about in his talks with President Obama in the beginning??? If he didn't agree to certain key deal breakers, he could have walked away, and just said that it was an honor to be considered, but that the fit wasn't right for either party. So what didn't he understand about the job, before accepting it??

If he was ok with the conditions on taking the job, what changed since his acceptance?? I mean let's face it, it's not a secret that President Obama is a Democrat with progressive philosophy. How does he not understand that the President will set the agenda and the vision, that he serves in the CABINET of the President, working on the President's behalf. So if it came down to it being a surprise that he wouldn't get to implement policy to his liking, then all I can say is that he was STUPID for accepting a job he didn't totally understand.

If he understood the conditions and the expectations of the President, the only other thing that makes sense is the dynamics and the peer pressure from his Republican Party. Essentially he caved in to whatever they were saying to him, and he decided he didn't want to be alienated from his little Republican Clique.

Republicans celebrated Gregg’s decision to stay in the Senate — and gloated over the embarrassment the Obama team was facing. “Sen. Gregg made a principled decision to return, and we’re glad to have him,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “He is among the smartest, most effective legislators to serve in the Senate — Democrat or Republican — and a key adviser to me and to the Republican Conference. It’s great to have him back.”

McConnell discouraged Gregg from accepting the commerce nomination before he took it, and he talked with him about withdrawing before he made his announcement. While McConnell wouldn’t discuss the specifics of his conversations with Gregg, he said: “It’s totally safe to say I was not happy to have a member of my team leave the Senate and go to the administration.”

There was even this garbage that was being circulated that it made the Republicans "emboldened" because Senator Gregg rejected President Obama.

What's silly is that the Republicans think it's a good thing to reflect on their party, when in actuality, it made Senator Gregg look like a weak, indecisive loser, and their party a bunch of petty vindictive men - worse than the shenanigans on "Mean Girls". So this indicates he has no mojo to be his own man.

The fact that the Republican Party are coralling their members and telling them to vote NO despite the benefits, and the fact that some Republican members like the stimulus, but they just don't want to be linked to voting for such a high spending bill, confirms what I have always known about the Republican Party. A bunch of hypocritical losers who care more about how they look, than what they actually do to benefit the country and the American People.

Let's just stop with the lies and the theatrical display, when they moan and don on clothes of sack ashes in decrying the debt we are burdening our children with - where were their fiscal conservative grumblings when we spent billions on contractors and on the Iraq War? Literally they lost $12 Billion dollars, they couldn't find out any accounting for this in the War spending. Did they forget that they and their President took a SURPLUS and turned it into a trillion dollar deficit? Finally, let's not forget that it was the aptly named, DICK Cheney who said "Deficits don't matter".

So at a meeting with the vice president after the mid-term elections in 2002, Suskind writes that O'Neill argued against a second round of tax cuts. “Cheney, at this moment, shows his hand,” says Suskind. “He says, ‘You know, Paul, Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due.’ … O'Neill is speechless.” ”It was not just about not wanting the tax cut. It was about how to use the nation's resources to improve the condition of our society,” says O’Neill. “And I thought the weight of working on Social Security and fundamental tax reform was a lot more important than a tax reduction.” Did he think it was irresponsible? “Well, it's for sure not what I would have done,” says O’Neill.

By the way, Senator Judd Gregg, voted "NO" on the Stimulus Bill - AFTER withdrawing his nomination as Secretary of Commerce. Gee - what a shocker!

Sphere: Related Content

No comments: