Even Democrats fear Big Government 3


By Tom Quiner

Even as President Obama and former Speaker Nancy Pelosi commend the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement, rank and file Democrats are more fearful of Big Government than Big Business.

Even as President Obama and his party call for an even bigger federal government, his Democratic base is not in agreement, according to a new Gallup Poll. When asked who they fear more, Big Government, Big Business, or Big Labor, 48% of Democrats said Big Government vs. 44% who said Big Business. This is a dramatic increase since Team Obama took power and concentrated more power in the federal government.

In other words, OWS does not speak for the entire Democratic Party. Among Republicans, 82% fear Big Government most compared to only 6% who fear Big Business most.

What does this mean? It means that Mr. Obama needs to tack to the center if he wishes to be re-elected. He is engaged in a delicate balancing act in fomenting class envy, which is predicated on the heavy hand of government to redistribute income from those who earned it to those who did not. This is a potent message, but a dangerous one in light of his party’s concerns about the growing power of Big Government.

The chart above traces the history of this polling data.

Should public policy be molded by religion? 3


By Tom Quiner

“We have to give voice in public policy to keeping with the values of the Word.”

The person who made this comment was referring to the Gospel values embedded in Christianity. If I understand correctly, the speaker is saying that our faith must project its values onto the larger society by whom we elect to office and in the legislation we pass.

The speaker is former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Ms. Pelosi waxes eloquent on the beauty of the Word and the foundational principal of Christianity that the Word became Flesh, referring of course to the birth of Jesus the Christ.

At a follow up press conference, Ms. Pelosi was asked a legitimate question: when did Jesus become Flesh? Was it when He was conceived in the Virgin Mary by the Holy Spirit?

Ms. Pelosi made it clear that all her talk about the Word was just talk. She bristled at the young woman’s question. She refused to answer, suggesting the subject was only fit for church. And yet in this season of Advent as the Christian world awaits the birth of the Christ child who will save us from our sins, who will show has the path to salvation, shouldn’t this be THE question on our minds?

Ms. Pelosi made it fair game by stating with such passion, evidently feigned, that values in the Word, and specifically the Gospels, should influence public policy. What are the Gospels all about? They are about God made man at the instant of conception. It is unequivocal. This instant, known as the Immaculate Conception in the Catholic Church (Ms. Pelosi’s religion … and mine), trumpets God’s pro life message to mankind.

Ms. Pelosi attempted to manipulate the audience with her seeming embrace of the Gospels. In fact, her real God is Planned Parenthood’s altar of choice, also known as death to the millions of babies killed due to the public policy foisted on America by Nancy Pelosi and her ilk. She has been one of Congress’ most forceful advocates for the expansion of abortion.

I agree with Ms. Pelosi that our faith values have a place in molding public policy and should influence for whom we vote. As a Catholic who tries my hardest to practice my faith, I will accordingly vote against every candidate who believes as Nancy Pelosi does.

Congress under fire 1


By Tom Quiner

The American public is disgusted with America’s runaway debt and a Congress unable to do anything about it.

Yes, President Obama has contributed to the mess by promoting and signing bad legislation. And yes, he is a shameless class warfare demagogue, a man who promised to be a post-partisan president, but is in fact the most partisan president in modern history.

Despite Mr. Obama’s shortcomings, it is Congress who spends the money. They deserve the low marks they’re receiving from the American public.

The RealClear Politics poll reveals a staggering 81.7% of voters disapprove of Congress.

The newly released Gallup Poll show that a record 76% of registered voters said that Congressional members do not deserve to be re-elected.

Although President Obama’s approval ratings are an anemic 43.2%, they are still about double Congress, depending on the poll.

Look at the Gallup graph above. Approval of Congress began to rise in 1995 when Republicans retook the House and Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House.

Mr. Gingrich is getting bashed by the media right now, both from the Left and the Right. However, the poll above shows how the public reacts to results. Gingrich and Republicans delivered results in the 90s. It wasn’t always pretty. But they got the budget balanced.

Next year, the House and Senate races are just as vital as who sits in the White House. After all, it is Congress that controls the purse strings. Our disdain for Congress will continue until they solve the problem of unfunded mandates and runaway government spending.

 

Quiner’s Diner’s readers react to Newt Gingrich … 1


By Tom Quiner

Newt Gingrich is the most interesting candidate in the field. Love him or hate him, you’re going to listen to him and talk about about what he is saying.

I’ve gathered together comments from reader’s of this blog post regarding Speaker Gingrich.

A Des Moines attorney who was a Pawlenty backer this Spring said this about Gingrich to me last June:

“Newt is not viable, by the way. He is running a terrible campaign.”

Interesting how things can change.

A pro life advocate on the Des Moines scene had this to say:

“I like Newt.  I think he’s totally, 100% prolife and knows the political scene in and out.  I love how he can’t be duped in debates, calls a spade a spade and doesn’t allow the MSM to railroad him.  It matters not that he’s had 2 failed marriages.  Wrong choices in love do not necessarily indicate bad judgement in all areas of life.  If that were so half of America wouldn’t be qualified to hold public office! I would be stunned if the Republican party actually nominates a candidate for whom I wouldn’t have to hold my nose before I cast my vote.  Newt could be that man and I would vote for him without reservation based on what I know about him today.”
Here’s what she said about Mitt Romney:
“I wouldn’t trust him any further than I could throw him. He was pro-abortion before it became necessary for political purposes to claim to be pro-life.  Don’t walk away from this guy. RUN!”
A Quiner’s Diner reader who voted for Mr. Obama last time had this to say about Newt Gingrich:
“Newt Gingrich may sound good on tv, may have good ideas,  but I don’t  think I could trust him.  He’s the one who so relentlessly castigated President Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewensky and tried to bring him down with the Starr investigation.  While, at the same time he was cavorting around with a woman while he was married.  Talk about the height of hypocrisy!  I’m no longer interested in Cain either.   If I was to support a Republican right now, it would have to be Ron Paul.  In listening to him he’s willing to make hard and necessary decisions to actually lower our country’s debt that actually make sense to me. .  Plus I think he is trustworthy.  I would enjoy talking with you about Ron Paul, and would even listen to what you have to say on Gingrich.”
I would ask this gentleman, did you trust Bill Clinton?  Hmmm. And Mr. Obama has done a great job at reducing the debt, hasn’t he!
A faithful reader who is a pilot in Georgia weighed in with these thoughts:
“I like Newt. He comes across as presidential. I like what he has to say. And, even more important, I like the way he says it.  He is, undoubtedly, the most qualified candidate in the race with the greatest ability to get the most things done during his presidency. My mom and I randomly crossed paths with him several months back. The last time something like that happened to her, George W. Bush ended up becoming president. I’m just sayin’!”
A Catholic journalist viewed Mr. Gingrich this way:
“Despite the difficulties Gingrich’s campaign has encountered I don’t think it’s wise to count him out. Anything’s possible.A lot has been made about the “baggage” he carries. Does he have some? I’d say most likely, but specifically what that is depends on your particular perspective.

Certain things are deal-breakers for certain people. Vote for him because he’s Catholic? Vote against him because he’s divorced? Those two and many other elements could be debated on many levels. And the idea of a completely purist approach is the subject of controversy in more things than just candidate selection.

It’s just too bad there is so much decision-making based on perception created by the media.

I think Newt Gingrich is the object of significant derision precisely because those who oppose him find him to be a threat.

Really, before we ask, “Is there a spotless candidate,” I think we should ask whether a spotless candidate could get elected with the government and media we have today.

I am supporting another candidate, not because I want to vote against Gingrich, rather, I want to vote FOR my candidate.

Something I heard at a recent gathering regarding Gingrich has stuck with me for some reason. That was: Say what you will about him, any of the other candidates in the field, or anything that’s occurred in the campaign, he’s still the smartest one in the room. Now someone is always going to dispute a statement like that. But this gathering was a diverse sampling of candidate loyalty, and no one said a word in reply.

I hope and pray my candidate wins. If that is not God’s will, my prayer is that it is someone who is smart, as well as someone possessing character and fear of the Lord; because those are all things our country desperately needs restoration of at the helm.”

A retired Des Moines grandmother had this to say:

“To be honest, I’m at a loss for words about Newt’s candidacy!  I think he is very intelligent and surely “knows the ropes”  of politics much better than some of the other candidates.  I have to admit that I was not very aware of things back when the Libs were dragging all the skeletons out of his closet and caused his “fall from grace”.  It’s a sure thing he can lead– for instance, the success of the “Contract With America.”   He’s currently being bad-mouthed about some financial debt, and that may cause problems down the road.  You can be sure the Dems will be digging as much dirt as possible on every candidate!”

A retired employee of the federal government, a staunch Catholic, was short and sweet:

“We have a president who is a great campaigner and is clueless when it comes to governing. Newt is a mediocre campaigner but based on his past, would be excellent at governing.”

A Des Moines college professor reacted thusly:

“I do not know much about Newt. I can say that I think he is very bright—perhaps the brightest of all the candidates.  He is also a very good thinker.  He is clear.  He understands economics. However, I find him to be unreliable, and a loose cannon.”

A Des Moines Catholic Mom said:

“I’m not the one to ask…I like Newt…think he’s so darn smart and tough too…I’m supporting Santorum.  He’s the real deal.”

Finally, a Chicago attorney with Des Moines roots offered a thoughtful analysis of Newt Gingrich in reaction go my blog a couple days ago titled, “Analyzing Gingrich’s baggage”:

“I enjoyed reading your post today and agree completely with your analysis re: the three possible candidates in 2012.  I would take it a step further: if Romney is the nominee, he wins; if Gingrich is the nominee, he loses.  I think this will be the case unless there is significant economic deterioration between now and voting day.  Independents have been hugely important in recent elections, and I think the majority of them (myself included) care more about social issues (which to me means limiting government interference in my life) than whether the top marginal tax rate is 39.4% or 42% (just making up numbers).  I don’t believe a President really has that much control when it comes to the economy, but I am very critical of Obama running up the deficit.  I think it would be a tactical mistake to shoot for the moon with a staunch social conservative, believing that Obama will be so unappealing that he will lose no matter what.

As for Newt, I’m a bit put off by him — maybe that will change.  He’s clearly intelligent and has a better grasp on policy issues than any other contender, but I doubt that I would be able to vote for him because of his stance on social issues.  I don’t have any issues with his divorces per se; I have an issue with his blaming it on his passion for our country.  I also think you kind of lose the right to moralize about “traditional marriage” when you’ve cheated on your wives and have gone through multiple marriages.  I also think — and this isn’t hyperbole — that it would be somewhat of a disgrace if we have a First Adulteress instead of a First Lady.  Anyway, I’m looking forward to the race.  It should be interesting.  I’m sure my thoughts about Newt will evolve as he spends more time in the limelight.
Most importantly, congratulations on your 400th post.  That is a huge accomplishment, and I know you have put a lot of effort into it and are putting out a great product.  I don’t always agree with your positions, but I know that you have really thought about them.  You’ve certainly made me re-think some of my positions, and I thank you for that.  Keep up the good work!”
Lay it on me. What do YOU think of Newt Gingrich and the other candidates in the field? The day of decision nears.

The ulterior motive behind the global warming con 1


By Tom Quiner

The recent revelations of Climategate II reveal the scientific duplicity behind the global warming movement. An international global warming conference is taking place in Durbin, South Africa, right now, with little international fanfare.

The movement has been discredited. As Jim Inhofe, Republican Senator from Oklahoma, says above:

“The message from Washington to the U.N. delegates in South Africa this week could not be any clearer: you are being ignored. And you are being ignored by your biggest allies in the United States: President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the Senate.”

Global warming is relevant and will remain relevant for at least one more year because of liberal politics.

I sat in on a small gathering with former Minnesota Governor and presidential candidate, Tim Pawlenty, earlier this year. He told us he embraced global warming theories for awhile before he took a closer look at the science, and learned it relied on shaky premises.

Same with Newt Gingrich. He called his initial embrace of the issue a “dumb move.” But you can’t blame a lot of folks for embracing global warming, or “climate change”, as it is now known. We were sold a bill of goods. There was a steady drumbeat of media attention and Hollywood adulation for this cause.

Mature analysts who have patiently waded through the hype have poked holes in the theory. Coupled with the latest revelations from Climategate II, we see the issue for what it is: a con job.

The global warming-related legislative priority for President Obama and his party was cap and trade. This would have foisted massive new taxation on America and dramatically lowered our standard of living (even more than Obamanomics has already done to us).

In light of the way the issue has been discredited, has Team Obama backed away from Global Warming/Climate Change?

No.

They are pursuing it with a vengeance through regulatory decree rather than the democratic legislative process by allowing the EPA to impose onerous new regulations on businesses.

Global warming has simply been a ruse to give Big Government more control over our lives. Mr. Obama’s head of the EPA, Lisa Jackson, has publicly admitted that unilateral U.S. effort to reduce CO2 emissions will have no impact on the world situation. Nonetheless, she is moving ahead with the president’s blessing to essentially impose elements of Cap & Trade by presidential fiat.

The global warming religion provides the fig leaf to mask the ulterior motive behind the con: to expand the power of the federal government over our lives.

The principle of a limited federal government as established by our Founders is on the line in the next election in many ways. The Global Warming religion is but one of the battle fronts.