Wyatt Taylor's blog

I'm not sure he's the first, but I'm glad to see someone called the President's bluff about going over the healthcare reform bill "line-by-line".

Rep. Tom Price of Georgia has formally accepted the invitation.

http://rsc.tomprice.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=140269

Maybe the President will save some time and review this 268 page bill proposed by the Republican Study Committee:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h3400ih.txt.pdf

Summary of the plan:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25581.html

... I'll be taking an August recess from this blog.  And, of course, I'll be ducking public forums and townhalls like all our Democrat representatives. 

I know, I know - you're clearly disappointed.  Let me explain: though I enjoy doing the blog, I must focus on things somewhat more urgent.  In preparation for graduate school, I am registered to take the GMAT exam in mid-September.  Many people spend months preparing for the test; I, in my typical fashion, have allowed myself only about 5 weeks.  So I'll be devoting them to pouring through test prep books and software, rather than the much more fun blogging.  Lord willing, after I rock a 700+ on the GMAT, I'll be right back here posting my political thoughts.  Until then, I'll recommend some daily reading for you:

www.realclearpolitics.com

www.nationalreview.com

www.weeklystandard.com

www.politico.com

Thanks for checking out my blog - and check back in September! 

WT

In a campaign style event yesterday President Obama made this promise about the healthcare bill:

"If they want to come over to the White House and go over line-by-line what is going on, I will be happy to do that."

http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-07-29-voa53.cfm

This one is easy.  I hope some spunky Republican back-bencher steps up to call that.  "Mr. President, I'd like to come over during the recess and go over this 1,000+ page bill with you, line-by-line." 

Check out the next generation of Republican leadership, Rep. Paul Ryan (R - WI), on MSNBC. (Hat tip: Mary Katherine Ham at the Weekly Standard)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hdr49iGZOUw&feature=player_embedded

I've been extremely impressed with Ryan for a while now.  Young, articulate, whip smart, good ideas, conservative - 2012 may be too soon, but if he's not a major player in the future I'll be very surprised and disappointed.  He's one of what I call "My Guys" - rising stars I think may be of presidential caliber.  I'd like to see more of these folks assuming leadership rolls in the party, on bigger stages, and in some cases, moving up to more prominent offices.  Here's my short list (in no particular order), I'd love to hear some of yours:

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

Gov. Mitch Daniels (IN)

Gov. Bobby Jindal (LA)

Sen. Jon Kyl (AZ)

Rep. Eric Cantor (VA)

Fmr. Rep. Rob Portman (OH)

Gen. David Petraeus*

These guys have a few things in common (aside from being men, which is not an exclusion of women - I honestly can't think of any prominent women that fit this criteria): conservative, smart, serious, well spoken, extremely competent, accomplished. 

*the general's conservative credentials are, of course, unknown at the moment.  I'd need to be convinced he's not the second coming of Powell.

Perhaps I'll get around to posting more on this later, but more than anything, I believe the Republican party needs to rebrand itself as the party of competence.  At every level, "smart" Democrats have made a mess of things by being blatently incompetent.  Republican ideas, when tried, work.  By elevating candidates with proven track records of success, we can present a strong counterargument.  Obama was inexperienced, but that didn't seem to hurt him.  In 2012, the case against him will no longer be experience, it will be his failed record.  To exploit that, we'll need a candidate with some credentials - like an Ivy league graduate, two-term governor who kept his state's budget in balance during the economic downturn (Daniels).  This, for me, is the strongest case against Palin.  Not that I buy her being dumb, but that the public perception of her is the opposite of competence and it's unlikely to turn on a dime.  What do you think?

"We got too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns," Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) told the Columbus Dispatch. "It's the southerners."

I say give me a dozen more Jim DeMints or Tom Coburns and I'll give you healthcare reform that works.  I'll give you economic policies that free up the wealth creating energy of the American people and rocket us into recovery.  If only we had a few more of those guys...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTRjMTFhMzQxYmEzNjA2YWIwOTU4YWVjNzRmODE2NTI=

Anyone still questioning the President's birth status, please follow the link.  I appreciate the desire to click our heels together and make it all go away, but that's a fantasy we can't afford right now.  Aside from the all too obvious Springsteen reference, I agree completely with the editorial linked above.  Far more valuable uses of our time, energy, and credibility exist.  For starters, how about putting pressure on the FEC to investigate President Obama's campaign finances? 

Check out this article on Healthcare debate myths:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/23/health_care_mythology_97552.html

It's a pretty long read, but very important.  I'm more and more convinced that this is the type of messaging we need going into the 2010 and 2112 cycles - sort of a push back against all these liberal premises that have become conventional wisdom.  Kind of an "Everything they've told us is wrong".  McCain missed a lot of these opportunities in the debates; we need a candidate in 2012 who will be capable of making concise arguments against these types of liberal yarns.  All the more so because President Obama is a very conventional thinker.  Taking the weak premises out from under his leftist policies will leave him looking foolish (or more foolish). 

Despite all their claims to the contrary, Dems have a crucial weekness we can exploit with facts and science.  For an excellent treatise on this, see the late Michael Crichton's "Aliens Cause Global Warming" speech from 2003.

http://www.michaelcrichton.net/speech-alienscauseglobalwarming.html

Dems have completely married themselves to the "science" of man-made global warming.  As the "concensus" further unravels in the coming years, Republicans have an opportunity to once again be seen as the true champions of science and reason.  Ditto with the breakthroughs in adult stem cell (iPS) research versus embryonic stem cells.  This will have the added benefit of broadening our appeal to younger voters, with whom the Republican party has struggled of late.  While I've always been sympathetic to conservatism, my public school education grounded me in the liberal myths and presuppositions that carry one naturally to liberal policy prescriptions.  It wasn't until I began looking more closely that these foundations eroded and I found myself back on conservatism's shores.  This happened issue-by-issue.  I think we can do much to help a generation of youth until now firmly in Democrat land find their way to the Republican party.  They are The Next Right.

Time to roll out what I imagine will be a regular feature of this blog, The Arg! Files, wherein I discuss a liberal talking point used incessently that makes me want to scream "Arg!" everytime I hear it.  Enjoy...

In yesterday's Washington Post op-ed, "What Palin Got Wrong About Energy", Senators Barbara Boxer and John Kerry once again roll out this silly talking point:

"...the United States has only 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves, while we are responsible for 25 percent of the world's oil consumption."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072302633.html

This has been in wide use among Democrats for some time now, making an appearance in the presidential debates last year and in nearly every discussion of energy policy.  Of course, on close examination, it has not a fraction of the power they imagine it does.  But who examines this stuff closely anyway?

While the numbers they cite are true, it is also true that the United States has less than 5% of the world's population and produces more than 27% of the world's wealth (measured in GDP).  Given that discrepancy, and the fact that we are far and away the most economically developed country in the world, don't you think we should be expected to use more oil?  Would they have us to produce less wealth to even things out?  And no, Mr. Liberal, I'm not going to let you get away with saying we don't share all that wealth.  The U.S. is the world's largest private and public charitable giver.  Plus, our goods and services are exported across the globe. 

There are three ways to balance the inequality put forth in the talking point: find more oil, use less oil, or some combination of the first two.  Usually, the implication from Dems who make this point is that the United States must use less oil, since most causal observers would believe you can't possibly add to our oil reserves.  But there again is a faulty premise.  The statistic cited, "proven oil reserves", isn't just the total amount of oil in the ground.  It's more strictly oil believed to be recoverable with a high probability and under "existing economic and political conditions".  Anything about that definition jump out at you?  Why would it be that under existing conditions the United States has a dearth of oil reserves?  I'll give you a clue: it's one word, starts with an L, ends with an S,  and the middle sounds like "iberal".  That's right, liberals.  Way back in 1972, the U.S. produced, get this, 25% of the world's oil.  It's 10% now - and falling.  What happened in between?  Endless environmental regulations slowed or closed off nearly all new production.  Our "proven reserves" don't count gigantic oil basins in Alaska or off-shore because under existing political conditions, we can't recover that oil.  Think any of those Middle Eastern countries have similar restraints?  Dream on.  The "proven reserves" would shoot up under a "Drill, Baby, Drill" energy policy.  Our liberal friends will have nothing of it but don't mind making political hay out of the sad stat they've helped create. 

Final point: if the United States had 100% of the world's proven oil reserves, do you think liberals and Dems would advocate more oil use?  Of course not, and that is the fundamental hypocrisy of this formulation.  They care not a wit about our actual oil reserves, they care about our evil consumerism and its impact on global warming.  They'd use any stat they could to convince us of our evil ways - I just wish they'd stop using this one, it's driving me crazy. 

On Tuesday the Senate passed an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that stripped $1.75 billion in funding for the F-22 Raptor program.  The military will end up with just 187 of these amazing fighters.  While opinions in the Pentagon seem to vary, in the past officials have estimated we need 250-380 to maintain air supremecy and preparedness into the forseeable future.  To borrow a phrase, I think the Senate has "acted stupidly" here.

First of all, the Raptor is awesome!  It is far and away the best fighter jet in the world.  That may not always be the case, but for the moment nothing can match it.  This is not really in dispute.  Having a full arsenal of these bad boys provides the U.S. a huge advantage over the rest of the world. 

Second, the critics of the F-22 point to the F-35 as a better alternative.  This is just ignorant.  The F-35 is slower and less agile.  It is not designed for the same purpose as the F-22, being more suited to Air-to-Ground assaults than Dogfights.  The F-35 is not ready for production and won't be for years - it's already behind schedule.  The trump card, however, is that the F-35 is a Joint Strike Fighter - part of a program in which we share in the development of the fighter jet with other countries.  The F-22 technology is all American; it is against the law to be sold abroad.  All things being equal, shouldn't we prefer to stock our military with weapons no one else can duplicate? 

Third, in a time when the administration is desperate to pump stimulus into the economy and "save jobs", the F-22 program is the very definition of effective stimulus.  The various stages of production for the F-22 employ 25,000 Americans.  The $1.75 billion is a mere .2% (that's two tenths of a percent) of the funding authorized in the Stimulus bill earlier this year - and a fraction of the funds set aside in that bill for ridiculous high speed rail lines from LA to Vegas. 

This is another example of Democrats just not looking closely enough.  And America suffers as a result.  Hopefully, we can find a way to resurrect the F-22 program yet.

Also, check out this nice piece on the memes employed in the debate over the F-22 (spoiler: they don't hold up to facts):

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:338b1664-f6f7-4795-939b-16536947dafb

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

Rasmussen's daily tracking has the President's approval at 49%, 51% disapproval.  The Presidential Approval Index (strongly approve - strongly disapprove) is now -8%. 

This is mind-boggling; especially so since he was at nearly 60% approval on the same poll in early June.  I know the healthcare "plan" is unpopular, but even given that, I am at a loss to explain such a rapid and deep fall that doesn't appear to be leveling off.  Feels pretty good to be back in the majority! 

A word of caution - the President's approval in the Rasmussen daily poll has consistently been at the low end among the various polls.  So consider this as from a conservative-friendly source.  Even so, the trend is remarkable.