“We need to change behavior in this country,” he told about 400 emergency-management instructors at a conference in June, lambasting the “government-centric” approach to disasters. He learned a perverse lesson in Florida: the more the federal government does in routine emergencies, the greater the odds of catastrophic failure in a big disaster. “It’s like a Chinese finger trap,” he told me last spring, as a hailstorm fittingly raged outside his office. If the feds do more, the public, along with state and local officials, do less. They come to expect ice and water in 24 hours and full reimbursement for sodden carpets. But as part of a federal system, FEMA is designed to defer to state and local officials. If another Katrina hits, and the locals are overwhelmed, a full-strength federal response will inevitably take time. People who need help the most—the elderly, the disabled, and the poor—may not get it fast enough.

To avoid “system collapse,” as he puts it, Fugate insists that the government must draft the public. “We tend to look at the public as a liability. [But] who is going to be the fastest responder when your house falls on your head? Your neighbor.” A few years ago, Fugate dropped the word victim from his vocabulary. “You’re not going to hear me refer to people as victims unless we’ve lost ’em. I call them survivors.” He criticizes the media for “celebrating” people who choose not to evacuate and then have to be rescued on live TV—while ignoring all the people who were prepared. “This is a tragedy, this whole Shakespearean circle we’re in. You never hear the media say, ‘Hey, you’re putting this rescue worker in danger.’”

The left cried bloody murder when a conservative dared to suggest that people, you know, learn to take care of themselves and prepare for emergencies and the like. Yet here we are, barely four years later, and they’re now saying the exact same thing. Which just goes to show you that they knew we were right all along, they just wanted to make a political issue out of it, just like they did with the war, with spending, with interrogation, wiretapping, corruption, etc. The ONLY reason they had a problem with ANY of that stuff was because it wasn’t them doing it, and they feel that they’re the only ones entitled to do it.

I work in Ottumwa, Iowa, which is a heavily Democrat area, and has been since before I was born. It’s rare that the people here vote Republican for anything, basically.

Anyway, I deal with the public quite a bit and I get to chit-chat with them now and then and what I’ve begun to see is an actual backlash against the Democrats. People who are, self-admittedly, hard-boiled Democrats are getting fed up. They don’t like the spending, they don’t like this health care business, and they don’t like where Obama and his cohorts are leading us.

These aren’t a handful of people I’ve talked to, either. We’re not talking about a couple of people here and a few people there, we’re talking hundreds of them over the past few weeks. Almost every single one of them are upset and disgruntled. And they aren’t pulling any punches, either.

I’ve heard a few of them say they should have backed Hillary, but then they state that she probably wouldn’t have been any better (probably?!?). I’ve had more than a few say they should have backed McCain. In other words, “buyer’s remorse” has set in here in the heartland of America.

If the Democrats in Washington (and in Des Moines) are losing support of these guys, then I think we’re going to see one hell of an upset come next November, because the way these people are talking, there’s no way they’re voting for them again.

We’ve got a special election coming up on Sept. 1 here in this part of Iowa, and it should be a good litmus test of what’s going to happen in about a year. If this guy wins, Chet Culver and the rest of the Democrats in the State House are going to be running for cover. And so will the politicians in Washington.

The still sort-of-new Barack Obama Democratic administration has again adopted another policy straight out of the administration of his much-criticized Republican predecessor, George W. Bush.

Obama administration officials have rejected a watchdog group’s request for a list of healthcare industry executives who’ve been meeting secretly in the White House with Obama staffers to discuss healthcare changes being drafted there and in Congress.

According to the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which is suspicious of the influence of health industry lobbyists and company officers, it received a letter from the Secret Service citing an Obama Justice Department directive and denying access to visitor logs under the “presidential communications privilege.”

Like it or not, there is such a thing as Executive Privilege, and Presidents have been using it since the beginning of the Republic, to various degrees. And, I might add, that if there’s one area where it should be respected, it’s this one.

Presidents sometimes need opinions and input from people outside of their immediate staff, and the only way to get them honestly and candidly is to make sure that the conversations remain private, meaning that the people giving them can rest assured that anything they say won’t be on the front page tomorrow. You take away this kind of confidentiality, then Presidents won’t get honest opinions or information anymore, they’ll get political rhetoric, with the participants dictating more to posterity than to the President himself.

Regardless of what party a President belongs to, this is the way it needs to be. I don’t agree one bit with Obama’s health care plans (or any of his other plans, for that matter), but I will defend his power, as President, to solicit advice from anyone he chooses and to keep that advice private, provided they’re not breaking any laws.

But I have to say, I do love it when liberals or Democrats have an epiphany and realize this stuff, especially after spending years bashing Republicans over the same exact thing. It’s the perfect demonstration of the liberal motto, “Do as I say, not as I do”, not to mention the way Democrats politicize everything in their quest for absolute power and control.

First, he’s hiding his budget numbers. Second, he’s hiding his spending cuts report. Third, he’s hiding his Gitmo decision.

Does that sound like a man who campaigned on “transparency”? Of course not. But, then again, we conservatives told you he was lying.

First off, Democrats never — EVER — cut spending. It’s against their religion. He’s hiding his report because there are no cuts to be made. He will, once it is released, give the same old lefty excuse, that he looked high and low for cuts and, gosh darnit, there just weren’t any to be had (oh, he might cut a couple of useless items and save a few million, but that’ll be the extent of it).

Second, closing Gitmo just won’t happen. You can quote me on that. I’ve said it a couple of times on this blog, that the left used Gitmo and the war for political gain and now that they’re in office, why, they now realize these people are dangerous and we simply have to keep them in there.

Third, his budget numbers are going to make any — or even all — of Bush’s numbers look spectacular by comparison. Obama’s deficit for just this one year is going to end up around $1.8 trillion! And that’s IF his numbers come in as he expects! If they don’t (and trust me, they won’t), then he’s looking at over $2 trillion in the hole (or down it, rather). And that’s without the massive increase if this health care program gets passed.

If you look at Obama’s numbers (and people have, much to the left’s chagrin), you’ll see just what kind of ideology this man and his cronies are pushing. It’s not a pretty picture, folks.

I knew this man would be a disaster going in. In fact, I counted on it. Our choice in 2008 was between a liberal Democrat and a liberal Republican. I didn’t see any difference in the two, to be frank, except that the damage caused by the Democrat would be slightly more than the damage caused by the Republican. Liberalism is still liberalism, after all.

Let me be clear, here: it’s not that I want to see Democrats discredited and defeated, per se, it’s that I want to see liberalism discredited and defeated. It’s why we are where we are today, and the sooner people realize what it is and what it does to a nation and its people, the better off we’ll all be.

Update: I meant to include this link in this post somewhere, but forgot:

Government Spending Shatters Post-War Records

The reason he’s tanking is BECAUSE he’s been trying to “lead” on these issues. People are wising up to what this man wants and what his party/ideology represents. That’s why Team Obama doesn’t want to show us the numbers just yet. They know that if they do, their political goose is cooked.

The Central Intelligence Agency withheld information about a secret counterterrorism program from Congress for eight years on direct orders from former Vice President Dick Cheney, the agency’s director, Leon E. Panetta, has told the Senate and House intelligence committees, two people with direct knowledge of the matter said Saturday.

The report that Mr. Cheney was behind the decision to conceal the still-unidentified program from Congress deepened the mystery surrounding it, suggesting that the Bush administration had put a high priority on the program and its secrecy.

Mr. Panetta, who ended the program when he first learned of its existence from subordinates on June 23, briefed the two intelligence committees about it in separate closed sessions the next day.

Sounds terrible, doesn’t it? Not so fast, though. Buried paragraphs down are the following “buts”:

Members of Congress have differed on the significance of the program, whose details remained secret and which even some Democrats have said was properly classified. Most of those interviewed, however, have said that it was an important activity that should have been disclosed to the intelligence committees.

In addition, an unidentifed source stated that the program “never went fully operational”.

Don’t be fooled by any of this. This is just a smoke screen so that Democrats can point to the CIA, via Cheney, and say they were lied to or misled. Neither is true, and Obama’s conduct the last few weeks in regards to the war is proof of that.

See, when Obama was running for the presidency, he had nothing but bad things to say about Bush and Cheney and how they were fighting the war. Once he was sworn in, though, it’s a totally different story. He’s flip-flopped on virtually everything he campaigned on when it comes to the war on terror (and when it comes to a lot of other things, too).

I hate to say it but, once again, I told you so. Back when we were preparing to invade Iraq, Democrats were totally on board. The minute the troops crossed the border and the shooting started, they realized they had an important political issue to make use of. And they lost no time in doing so. Democrats in Congress fell over themselves to see who could denounce the war the fastest. Forget that they actually voted for the war, that was then, this is now!

And here we are today. They now are totally ok in fighting the war. It’s now a cause that must be won, no matter what it takes or what we have to do. Which says to me — indeed, it screams to me — that the Democrats knew this all along, felt it and believed it, yet they put partisan politics over national security. I know…what else is new, right?

The left isn’t done with Cheney or Bush. This goes beyond the war, beyond Kerry’s defeat in 2004, and beyond Algore’s loss in 2000. This is about revenge, pure and simple. Republicans took the Congress from the Democrats in 1994 (how DARE they!), and then the hero of the liberal establishment, Bubba J. Clinton, was caught lying under oath and impeached. So now here we are, a decade later, and the left can’t get past that fact. They want to get even, to make sure that Republicans or conservatives don’t even think of taking the majority again. That’s all this is about.

Well, let me tell you something. If the Democrats continue to repeat history, as they’re doing right now, they’ll soon find themselves in the minority again, because honest, hard-working, tax-paying American citizens aren’t going to sit there and just take this crap from them. They’ll vote their a$$es out of office quicker than you can say “Slick Willy”.

So what?

I was never a fan of Ms. Palin to begin with, as I’ve said more than once. For instance, in this post:

Do I think she would have made a good Veep? Without a doubt. I mean, it’s not a hard job and doesn’t require a lot of effort or experience. Look at it this way: if Gore, Mondale, Quayle, etc. — and now Biden, of all people — were up to the task, then you know that anyone can do the job. However, being Vice President means other things than just casting tie-breaking votes and presiding over the Senate. It means waiting for the President to die or resign.

Do I think she was ready for that to happen, given the fact that McCain is in his seventies and could drop dead at any given moment? No, I don’t think she was. She may be ready someday (I think 2012 is pushing it), but not right now.

And then there was this post:

Although I like her, I don’t think she’s experienced enough in national politics to be Commander-in-Chief. This may change as we get closer to 2012, though, so keep an eye on her.

About the only thing I liked about Ms. Palin was her willingness to say what needs to be said. When the left attacked her, she didn’t just sit back and take it, ala Bush, she fought back. When John “I Served In Vietnam” Kerry started in on her, she responded (and brilliantly, I might add). But it takes more than wit to be a leader of a national party, and it certainly takes more than not being afraid to stand up to liberal kooks and the media to be a good president.

Ms. Palin is a good conservative and a good Republican. Other than that, she’s not ready for the big chair. She may be someday, but that day is far off. Now that she’s resigned as Governor of Alaska, that day is probably even further off. If she runs for Senate or something like that, or takes a high-level Cabinet post in a future Republican administration, she might edge herself back in the running, but I really don’t see it happening.

I know I’ll catch some flak for this, but I’m pretty sure this is the end of Palin’s political career and, to be honest, I’m not at all bothered by it. I’m sure the people who are most upset about this are the kooks on the left. I mean, what will Sullivan write about now?

Now, this business about what he inherited drives me batty. He keeps blaming it on his “predecessor.” No president has ever done that. This is childish. It is immature. It’s narcissistic. Let me tell you what Barack Obama “inherited,” as president of the United States. Barack Obama inherited greatness. He inherited the birthplace of the individual. He inherited the defender of liberty at home and abroad, the United States of America. He inherited American exceptionalism.

He inherited the concept of equal opportunity and the right to fail and to try again. Barack Obama, as president, inherited the financial center of the world. He inherited the country that has successfully championed capitalism and widespread prosperity. Something else that President Obama also inherited: great responsibility. He inherited the great responsibility to lead the world’s lone superpower. He inherited the responsibility to preserve and to strengthen free markets. He inherited the responsibility to continue the philosophy and tradition of a country founded on Judeo-Christian morals, ethics, and principles. He inherited the Constitution of the United States. He did not inherit the right to unilaterally rewrite it or to remake it. He swore to uphold it! Barack Obama did not inherit a mess.

He inherited the United States of America, where anything is possible, where greatness has been delivered to the world time after time in the form of private sector inventions, innovations, and advancements in products that improve people’s lives for over 200 years. Barack Obama inherited all of that and a country of individuals energized by their liberty, individuals strengthened by their character. Barack Obama inherited a country that liberates the oppressed. Barack Obama inherited the greatest economy in the history of human civilization. That’s all. Nothing more; nothing less. There is nothing to apologize for what he inherited! He may as well be a five-year-old crybaby spoiled brat. (crying) “I inherited this mess of my predecessor.” He has nothing to apologize for regarding what he inherited. There is so much to be proud of in the United States of America. There’s always a lot of work to be done to preserve it and to grow it, but not in the way Obama is proceeding. Obama is destroying what others before him created. He did not inherit a mess. He has created one — and as the mess he creates deepens, so does his blaming it on his predecessors. That is gutless. It is childish. It is immature. It is unbecoming someone who serves as president of the United States.

Obama inherited a minor mess from the Bush years, but it wasn’t Bush’s doing. It was Democrats in Congress and the Clinton Administration that gave us this recession. Bush tried to stop it, but Democrats in Congress over the last couple of years wouldn’t work with him to prevent it. Now, instead of a minor recession that could have been over in a year or less, we’re teetering on the brink of a major recession, perhaps a depression (I don’t think it’ll get that bad, no matter what Obama does to the economy), and we’re trillions more in the red than we were before it began. Helluva way to run a railroad, if you ask me.

If we are going to get out of this mess, we have to return power to the people and to the states, get Washington out of our pocketbooks, and make them balance the budget and get us out of debt. We cannot spend like this any longer. People (and other countries) who buy our debt are getting nervous about our ability to repay it, and understandably so. You don’t keep extending credit to deadbeats who don’t pay their bills, after all. Sooner or later, you cut them off. And that’s going to happen to us if we don’t get this crap under control, and fast.

Obama and his cohorts are adding trillions to the deficit, and he’s only five months into his term. We’re on the hook for about $63.8 TRILLION with no end in sight, and liberals want to pile on MORE debt to that with their communist/socialist/whatever-you-wanna-call-it agenda. Of course, their answer is always the same: more taxes. But we’re bleeding to death over high taxes as it is. We don’t need MORE taxes, we need LESS government.

Update: Read this, and then try to tell me the press isn’t carrying Obama’s water for him.

Republicans apparently seized control of the New York State Senate on Monday, in a stunning and sudden reversal of fortunes for the Democratic Party, which controlled the chamber for barely five months.

A raucous leadership fight erupted on the floor of the Senate around 3 p.m., with two Democrats, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens, joining the 30 Senate Republicans in a motion that would displace Democrats as the party in control.

In a news conference in the early evening, Senator Malcolm A. Smith of Queens, leader of the Senate Democrats, insisted that the Republican-engineered vote was illegal and violated parliamentary procedure. He said the vote was illegal because it had already taken place after the meeting was already brought to an end.

It was a noisy and acrimonious scene on the floor of the Senate as Senator Thomas W. Libous, a Republican from Binghamton and the party’s deputy leader, shouted for a roll-call vote, while Democrats attempted to stall the vote by asking to adjourn the session.

All 30 Republicans stood with their hands raised, signaling a vote for a change in leadership. Mr. Espada and Mr. Monserrate joined them, each raising his hand. Republicans won the vote by a 32-to-30 margin. The Senate will now be governed under a new joint leadership structure, with Mr. Espada serving as the president pro tempore, and Senator Dean G. Skelos, of Long Island, as the new majority leader.

Ever notice that when a vote doesn’t go their way, Democrats always call shenanigans and start throwing around the “illegal” word?

Let’s assume for a moment (and you all know what happens when you assume) that this was “illegal” and that it doesn’t count or whatever. Do the Democrats in New York think that this was a one-time thing? That a similar vote won’t be brought up again in the future? It’s more than likely that it will be. But that does give them time to snap these renegade Dems back into line (remember what happened to Lieberman), so they might use the delay to their advantage.

But if the Democrats and the left think this is a one-time thing being played out in just one state, they’re sadly mistaken. It’s going on, to a certain degree, in nearly every state in the Union right now. People are pissed. They now know they were fooled by the Hope-and-Change guy and his cohorts in Congress. They’re not going to fall for it again, mark my words, and when the mid-term elections come around, Republicans will — unless they shoot themselves in the foot — take back Congress.

1) Mitt Romney: Has the talent, the skill, the looks, the charm, the money, and the organization. Plus, he’s conservative. Despite his straying from that ideology in the past, it appears he learned his lessons from it and moved to the right where he belongs (now, just how sincere that move was I can’t tell you for sure, but it appears genuine at the moment). Only problem I can see is his religion. I think people would have a problem with his Mormonism (I don’t, I couldn’t care less what religion a candidate is, just as long as he has one and believes in God), and that may cost him at the polls.

2) Newt Gingrich: Although he has been tainted by scandals in years past, Newt remains probably one of the few politicians on the right who is (almost) a pure conservative. Highly doubtful that he’d run, but I’d vote for him if he could gain the nomination.

3) Fred Thompson: Was my original pick over Romney last time around, but his lazy-style of campaigning guaranteed that he wouldn’t last very long. It was like he was just going through the motions most of the time. If he can kick it in gear and get fired up, and fire up fellow Republicans, he’d be a great candidate and a great president. If he can’t, or for some reason refuses to, then he shouldn’t even bother.

4) Haley Barbour: Currently the governor of Mississippi, he has a very conservative track record, especially in regards to spending and deficits.

5) General David Petraeus: Top-notch military man, perhaps not a Reagan-conservative or even an Eisenhower-conservative, he still knows how to get things done. I have no idea whether he is a Republican or a Democrat, but I will say that even if he is a Democrat, I think he would be a good president, as long as he wasn’t a far-left liberal (I can hardly believe that would be the case, though).

On a related note, here are my top five “Not just no, but HELL NO!” candidates:

1) Sarah Palin: Although I like her, I don’t think she’s experienced enough in national politics to be Commander-in-Chief. This may change as we get closer to 2012, though, so keep an eye on her.

2) Mike Huckabee: Not a conservative, but he plays one on t.v. (usually Saturday Night Live).

3) Rudy Giuliani: Would be as bad a choice as McCain was.

4) Ron Paul: I like my crazy in measured doses, thank you very much.

5) Jeb Bush: We’ve had enough moderate Bush family members to last us a lifetime, thank you very much.

Feel free to add your own list on the comments or, if you have a blog, write your own list and trackback to this post.