…the more they stay the “same.”
Here’s a little interesting food for thought, amidst Obama’s Clintonesque, deja vu cabinet construction. From Larry Elder:
“Candidate Obama maligned the Bush tax cuts for benefiting the rich. But President-elect Obama now intends to retain all the tax cuts, keeping the lower rates on the ‘rich’ until they expire in 2011 — a far cry from his campaign promises.
What about Bush’s ‘stupid’ Iraq war? Obama now wants Bush’s secretary of defense, Robert Gates, to stay. Huh? Gates supported the successful surge and the change in counterinsurgent strategy. Obama opposed the surge, attempted to stop it, and predicted failure. Candidate Obama promised to have combat troops out within a year or 16 months of his administration, but President Bush and the Iraqi government now tentatively agree to have all troops out by 2011, a timetable unfathomable but for Bush’s courageous and ultimately successful decision to surge.
What about the Guantanamo Bay detainees, the ‘evil’ interrogation techniques and ‘unlawful’ wiretaps? Obama — actually faced with governing — seems now to understand the complex legal questions Bush grappled with. Gitmo contains some really, really bad people, and Obama’s security advisers now appreciate the complex legal and logistical problems.
…So where does this leave us? Bush wasn’t so evil after all. And running for and governing as president are two different things. But don’t expect the Obama-loving media to notice or care.”
So, if Bush’s tax cuts only benefit the “wealthy,” why is Obama retaining them? Is it because to let them expire would mean more bad news for our economy? What are his reasons? And if one could answer the questions posed in the affirmative, doesn’t that mean that conservatism makes sense?
Good news: Chambliss has retained his Senate seat in Georgia. No filibuster-proof super-majority for the Democrats in the Senate.
A strange day, here, today. Off of my routine. Blog suffers pitifully. My apologies.