<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Washington Hotlist &#187; Billy Hallowell</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/author/hallowell/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com</link>
	<description>Politics 2.0</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 18:26:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Reverse Party Logic Proves Faulty</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/reverse-party-logic-proves-faulty/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/reverse-party-logic-proves-faulty/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 May 2009 02:40:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/reverse-party-logic-proves-faulty/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>“Agree with her or not, she seems like a sweet kid who means well.” HotAir.com&#8217;s Allah Pundit recently Tweeted this reassuring proclamation to his followers. The subject: Meghan McCain. The context: Her political philosophy. Surely, Allah Pundit’s right. Meghan does, indeed, have good intentions. But it is her somewhat anti-conservative viewpoints about which direction the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>“Agree with her or not, she seems like a sweet kid who means well.” HotAir.com&#8217;s Allah Pundit recently Tweeted this reassuring proclamation to his followers. The subject: Meghan McCain. The context: Her political philosophy. Surely, Allah Pundit’s right. Meghan does, indeed, have good intentions. But it is her somewhat anti-conservative viewpoints about which direction the Republican Party should head that drive a wedge between her and her constituents.</p>
<p>In reality, Meghan&#8217;s perspectives comprise just one of the many tenants competing for GOP dominance in a smorgasbord of ideological muck. Conservatives and Republicans are embroiled in a high-stakes battle-of -the-ideals, with all sides vying to capture the party’s heart and soul.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, some conservatives have forgotten that we live in a constitutional democracy. If you’ll recall, Laura Ingram was so incensed over Meghan’s political proclamations that she called her a “useful idiot” and made fun of her physical appearance. Just as Miss California had every right to voice her perspective during Sunday&#8217;s Miss USA pageant, so does Meghan McCain have the right to express where she stands on her party’s sociopolitical alignment (I bring up this totally random side-note to remind conservatives not to perpetuate a double standard when criticizing “rogue conservatives.” This is America. May we all speak freely). </p>
<p><b>Two, Contrasting Perspectives</b></p>
<p>So, what’s the big deal about Meghan, you ask? She describes herself as a Progressive Republican. Others, like political strategist Patrick Ruffini, would likely counter efforts to bestow such an anti-conservative title upon the party. Ruffini sees a need within the movement to return to conservatism – an effort to clarify party roots, while infusing the values and ethics that made the Republican Party so appealing to the Reaganites.</p>
<p>In truth, this brief description is less that a totalistic view of what is occurring within the GOP; Meghan and Patrick merely represent two opposing sides, with a middle-range so diverse it couldn&#8217;t possibly be captured in mere paragraphs. Ideological stances are surely in battle, but I&#8217;d hardly call it a full-fledged war. The Republican Party has lost step and those within it are attempting to repair its standing. The point of contention surrounds defining a literal meaning for “repair” and crafting an action plan that the majority of the party can embrace.</p>
<p>This past week on Twitter, Patrick said, “We can be more conservative AND more aggressive / dynamic / forward focused. These things are not in tension.” In contrast, Meghan McCain recently wrote, “I consider myself a progressive Republican…” and claimed that “…being a Republican is about as edgy as Donny Osmond.” Talk about a difference of opinion.</p>
<p>The two contrasting perspectives define, in a macro sense, the issues facing the party. While I am a big believer that current perspective is important in determining next steps, exploring the past is the best way to predict what’s to come in politics. A recent history lesson shows us that moving in the opposite ideological direction isn’t necessarily indicative of future success. Don’t believe me? Take a look at the democrats. Following its 2004 electoral defeat, the Democratic Party moved so far left that it&#8217;s currently dangling off a cliff over a sea of socialistic decree. Barack Obama&#8217;s nomination and subsequent election is the literal manifestation of this reality.</p>
<p><b>Clinging to the Outer Fringes</b></p>
<p>Aside from his overt inclination for “spreading the wealth” and his less than moderate positioning on issues like abortion and diplomatic relations with rogue nations like Iran, from 2004 and 2008, Barack Obama distinguished himself as the most liberal member of the United States Senate (or, as the Democrat&#8217;s like to say, he earned the title of “Miss Congeniality”). That&#8217;s like a baby learning to run before taking first steps. Or, to put it in a more realistic perspective: When a party embraces a candidate whose ADA rating beats Ted Kennedy&#8217;s, one can safely say that said party is clinging to the outer fringes of liberalism. Barack Obama is the most left-leaning president America has elected to date. Hands down.</p>
<p>The GOP is now the Democratic Party post-Kerry. This in mind, the notion that becoming more “liberal” will redefine the party in a positive way just doesn&#8217;t make sense. Unless Republicans want to see a split that rivals the Catholic-Protestant disunion, I&#8217;d advise against such a move.</p>
<p>If you follow the Democratic model, you&#8217;ll see a party that elevated another ADA-favorite and a liberal, yet average guy &#8212; John Kerry &#8212; to take on George W. Bush during a time of relative domestic and international instability (2004). Following electoral defeat and a steady increase in discontent, the Democrats saw a clear opportunity in 2008 to make “change” through the nomination of the most left-minded candidate they could find. Enter, Barack Obama.</p>
<p><b>A State of Shear Dormancy</b></p>
<p>When I hear the debate about how the GOP should react, I wonder: Have some Republicans been in a dormant state? Are drugs that induce sense-retardant inclinations being consumed without their knowledge? Don&#8217;t they get it? From health care to abortion rights, Barack Obama thinks we&#8217;ve done it all wrong. His self-proclaimed mission is to reboot any and all conservatively-influenced policies and his prescription for success is a hyper dose of Democratic doctrine. Meanwhile, Americans are encouraged to stand by while he continues to perform euthanasia on the financial markets. </p>
<p>What simply doesn&#8217;t make sense from a strategic or logical standpoint is the idea that becoming Democratic Light will equate to a positive reformation for the Republicans in 2010, 2012 and beyond. Did the Democrats make themselves more conservative, or more moderate for that matter following their 2004 defeat? The most recent bailout and tax code changes should answer that question for you.</p>
<p>As much as I believe Meghan McCain to be an effective leader and someone who does, indeed, deeply care for her country (she is John McCain&#8217;s daughter, after all), I deeply disagree with some of her insinuations that the party must move left for sake of survival. Retracing our conservative steps is the answer to formulating a true contingency plan. America doesn&#8217;t need a more liberal GOP; she needs a more rational and doctrine-abiding one.</p>
<p>To clarify, this means looking at where the GOP has been in an effort to retrace and correct party wrongs. This process transcends architectural tweaks to the party; it requires recapturing the movement&#8217;s heart and soul. It&#8217;s not about gay marriage – or abortion (to name only two controversial social issues). This is not to say that conservatives cannot and should not hold opinions about these issues. Everyone is entitled to individual perspective (yes, even Meghan McCain). But, if we truly want to save capitalism, the conservative heart must shift focus to the most pressing issue of our time: America&#8217;s economic decline. Fiscal conservatism is the answer.</p>
<p>Conservatives, for what it&#8217;s worth, have stuck solidly to the structures surrounding America&#8217;s social paradigms, but we have neglected and abandoned our small government mantra. We have allowed our own party members to engage in excessive spending, while sitting back and watching our economic doctrine lay dormant. The fiscal irresponsibility and vampire-esque future-feeding that the current administration is engaging in is a dangerous detriment to our democracy. The GOP needs to retract irresponsible spending policies and make good on its claim that human beings are the primary benefactors and architects of their own destiny.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s time to truly embrace small government ideologies. It is not time to abandon our principles in pursuit of a party construct that already exists. What made the GOP so powerful was its embracement of important social and economic issues. In keeping in step, the only natural reaction is to return to our roots, while making good on both areas of political inquiry.</p>
</p>
<div class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent" style="padding-right: 0px; display: inline; padding-left: 0px; float: none; padding-bottom: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-top: 0px">Technorati Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Billy+Hallowell" rel="tag">Billy Hallowell</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/RENEWtv" rel="tag">RENEWtv</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/GOP" rel="tag">GOP</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Republican" rel="tag">Republican</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Rebuild+the+Party" rel="tag">Rebuild the Party</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Democrats" rel="tag">Democrats</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Meghan+McCain" rel="tag">Meghan McCain</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Patrick+Ruffini" rel="tag">Patrick Ruffini</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Obama" rel="tag">Obama</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/reverse-party-logic-proves-faulty/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Embryonic Stem Cells: Obama&#8217;s First, Official Bi-partisan Move?</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/embryonic-stem-cells-obamas-first-official-bi-partisan-move/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/embryonic-stem-cells-obamas-first-official-bi-partisan-move/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 19 Apr 2009 18:54:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/embryonic-stem-cells-obamas-first-official-bi-partisan-move/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Liberals were singing President Obama&#8217;s praises last month when he overturned Bush-era restrictions on federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research.&#160; Unfortunately for the left, this move has been post ceded with restrictive regulation on how these cells may be used – a relatively welcome game-changer for most conservatives.</p>
<p>While destruction of human life for scientific benefit [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Liberals were singing President Obama&#8217;s praises last month when he overturned Bush-era restrictions on federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research.&#160; Unfortunately for the left, this move has been post ceded with restrictive regulation on how these cells may be used – a relatively welcome game-changer for most conservatives.</p>
<p>While destruction of human life for scientific benefit is surely reprehensible, the newly minted restrictions are paramount in that they represent Obama&#8217;s first attempt to remain somewhat neutral on a domestic issue of importance. </p>
<p>From the relatively unpopular bailout, which was pushed into law despite Republican discontent, to incessant acts of misgovernment, this administration has taken somewhat of an anti-conservative stance on a cornucopia of social and political issues.&#160; And while I still remain opposed to tax-payer funded embryonic stem cell research, the results of the administration&#8217;s stance could be playing out in a much more detrimental way.&#160; <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/17/stem-cell-guidelines-limit-research-fertility-clinic-embryos/">According to FOX News</a><em></em>, </p>
<blockquote><p>“Draft guidelines released by the National Institutes of Health reflect rules with broad congressional support, excluding more controversial sources such as cells derived from embryos created just for experiments.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Despite Obama&#8217;s overt attempt at leftist appeasement through the overturning of President Bush&#8217;s executive order, it appears the president is considering the rally cries of the opposing party on this issue. </p>
<p>Perhaps this newfound openness to issues associated with the right to life movement is reflective of the synergy many conservatives are creating in their attempt to rally together against those who would seek to pursue looser restrictions on abortion (as if the words “restriction” and “abortion” exist conversantly in Obama&#8217;s legislative agenda).&#160; </p>
<p>It is also quite possible that Obama recognizes his need to respect a massive portion of the populace&#8217;s rejection to his anti-life stances.&#160; Either way, this is somewhat of a step in the right direction.</p>
<p>Some scientists are, no doubt, disappointed.&#160; While many had hoped for no restrictions on taxpayer-funded embryonic research, the National Institutes of Health is requiring that all cells used must come from “&#8230;<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/17/stem-cell-guidelines-limit-research-fertility-clinic-embryos/">clinic embryos that otherwise would be thrown away</a>.”</p>
<p>Aside from Obama&#8217;s first, and thus far only, compromise, the most ironic portion of the new regulatory system is as follows (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/04/17/stem-cell-guidelines-limit-research-fertility-clinic-embryos/">as per FOX News</a>):</p>
<blockquote><p>“The guidelines also demand that the woman or couple who donate the original embryo give proper informed consent. There are other options for such donors, such as donating the embryo to another infertile woman, and all must be explained. The donation must be voluntary, without pressure from scientists.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>These regulations are surely a step in the right direction.&#160; With many claiming that embryonic stem cells are a hopeless endeavor, and with scientists finding more useful and less controversial methods of using and extracting stem cells (from amniotic fluid, by adapting adult stem cells, from umbilical chords, and without harming a fetus), one wonders why Democrats are behind the times in their incessant urge to pursue this method.</p>
<p>Still, it is encouraging to note that the government is not deregulating to the point of no return.&#160; While I am hopeful that common sense and logic lead the president and Congressional Democrats toward the realization of more optimal and viable options, I&#8217;ll take this compromise and pray for more.</p>
<p>And as ironic as it stands, I must congratulate President Obama for making his first attempt at moderate governance.&#160; Now, let’s hope he does the same in other sociopolitical realms.</p>
<div class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent" style="padding-right: 0px; display: inline; padding-left: 0px; float: none; padding-bottom: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-top: 0px">Technorati Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Barack+Obama" rel="tag">Barack Obama</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/embryonic+stem+cells" rel="tag">embryonic stem cells</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/stem+cells" rel="tag">stem cells</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Democrats" rel="tag">Democrats</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/FOX+News" rel="tag">FOX News</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/embryonic-stem-cells-obamas-first-official-bi-partisan-move/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Spending America&#8217;s Future into Oblivion</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/spending-americas-future-into-oblivion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/spending-americas-future-into-oblivion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:45:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/spending-americas-future-into-oblivion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Ideological Barriers to Change</p>
<p>As Americans cope with immense fiscal challenges, Congressional spending continues to spiral out of control. Living out Rahm Emanuel&#8217;s tweaked philosophy of never allowing “a serious crisis to go to waste,” Democrats are spending at an enigmatic rate – and some Republicans are following suite.</p>
<p>According to The Wall Street Journal, back in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><b>Ideological Barriers to Change</b></p>
<p>As Americans cope with immense fiscal challenges, Congressional spending continues to spiral out of control. Living out Rahm Emanuel&#8217;s tweaked philosophy of never allowing “a serious crisis to go to waste,” Democrats are spending at an enigmatic rate – and some Republicans are following suite.</p>
<p>According to <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122721278056345271.html"><i>The Wall Street Journal</i></a>, back in Nov. 2008 Emanuel told a group of corporate chief executives the following:“Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”</p>
<p>These are not the words of a fiscally-conscious lawmaker. “Things” that could not be done before – like what? And if “things” could not be afforded before, how would the nation, in the midst of a financial melt-down, suddenly have the resources to finance said “things?” </p>
<p>Clearly, Emanuel is speaking about ideological policy here, not systematic reform. This is not the time to sacrifice the future by printing money for the purposes of furthering the Democratic perspective. The most recent bailout and the subsequent spending bill that has already cleared the Senate are so poorly comprised and so detrimental that they can only result from such an ill-focused outlook.</p>
<p>And perhaps most preposterous was Emanuel&#8217;s assertion that the current climate will foster the hopenchange, bi-partisan rhetoric that Obama thrived on during the campaign: “The good news, I suppose, if you want to see a silver lining, is that the problems are big enough that they lend themselves to ideas from both parties for the solution.”</p>
<p>Good news? Silver lining? Despite such talk of bipartisanship, Washington is more divided than its been in decades, as the most recent stimulus had not one of the House&#8217;s 178 members voting in its favor. As Republicans and a small group of Democrats rally to control spending and vote down abuses, their colleagues have chosen to continue wasting tax-payer dollars, while abusing the powers that have been bestowed upon them by the American people.</p>
<p><b>Recent Fiscal Abuses</b></p>
<p>While most Americans are facing unemployment prospects and struggling to meet their most basic needs, out-of-touch Congressional members have slipped thousands of irrelevant pet projects into the latest spending bill that President Obama promises to sign. </p>
<p>Back in Sep. 2008, Obama said, “&#8230;when I&#8217;m president, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely” – a promise he has already broken. One cannot help but wonder what happened to Obama&#8217;s campaign pledge to take “a scalpel” to bills that contain pork-barrel spending. Instead, massive spending and fiscal deviance have dominated.</p>
<p>At this rate, it&#8217;s becoming difficult to follow just how much money Congress has spent. First, there was the stimulus passed by Bush and the Democratic Congress at the end of 2008 (over $700 billion). Then came Obama&#8217;s $787 billion stimulus package – cleverly entitled “The <em>American Recovery</em> and Reinvestment Act.” Now, Congress is slated to pass a $410 billion omnibus spending bill. The bill, intended to fund the government through the end of the fiscal year, is wrought with pork. </p>
<p>According to <a href="http://www.taxpayer.net/resources.php?category=&amp;type=Project&amp;proj_id=1961&amp;action=Headlines By TCS">Taxpayers for Common Sense</a>, it contains 8,570 earmarks, totaling $7.7 billion. A mere glimpse at the projects that have been inserted showcases a lack of Congressional responsibility and moral fabric. In this case, both parties are to blame. While Democrats have been leading the charge to irresponsible spending, Republicans who have earmarks in the bill are jumping on board in hopes that their projects will be funded.</p>
<p>The irresponsibility is paramount. At a time when Americans are hurting, Rep. Jerrold Nadler has earmarked $381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, with Sen. Lindsay Graham is attempting to filter $950,000 to the Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center. Additionally, $800,000 was earmarked for the purposes of “oyster rehabilitation” – whatever that means. And these are only a few examples (remember, there are nearly 9,000 to choose from). Clearly, these pork-laced projects have little to do with helping the American government meet its operating costs and everything to do with unpatriotic, self-interest.</p>
<p>Now, more than ever, America&#8217;s lawmakers need to cut unnecessary costs. As President Obama asks Americans to use less electricity, to trust his administration and to have faith in the system, he must also ask Congress – and his inner conscious – to make similar concessions. Our nation is deep in debt and the longer the people stand idle, the more tattered the country&#8217;s future will be. Now is the time for rhetoric-free, action-based fiscal conservation.</p>
<p><em>For more information about Billy Hallowell, go to </em><a href="http://www.williamhallowell.com"><em>www.williamhallowell.com</em></a><em>.&#160; For booking information about Billy and other speakers and programs, go to </em><a href="http://www.pathufindmedia.com"><em>www.pathufindmedia.com</em></a><em>.</em>&#160; </p>
<div class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent" style="padding-right: 0px; display: inline; padding-left: 0px; float: none; padding-bottom: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-top: 0px">Technorati Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Fiscal+Irresponsibility" rel="tag">Fiscal Irresponsibility</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/President+Obama" rel="tag">President Obama</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Congress" rel="tag">Congress</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Omnibus" rel="tag">Omnibus</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Spending+bill" rel="tag">Spending bill</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Stimulus" rel="tag">Stimulus</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Federal+Debt" rel="tag">Federal Debt</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Deficit" rel="tag">Deficit</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/spending-americas-future-into-oblivion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Obama, Democrats Refuse to Listen to the American People</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/obama-democrats-refuse-to-listen-to-the-american-people/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/obama-democrats-refuse-to-listen-to-the-american-people/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Feb 2009 01:27:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/obama-democrats-refuse-to-listen-to-the-american-people/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Talk about failing to learn life lessons.&#160; After battling for governmental control, Obama is making lofty decisions that stand firmly against the will of the American people.&#160; While he has experienced extremely high approval ratings for his performance these past three weeks, digging somewhat deeper into the polls showcases a substantive shift in public opinion.&#160; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Talk about failing to learn life lessons.&#160; After battling for governmental control, Obama is making lofty decisions that stand firmly against the will of the American people.&#160; While he has experienced extremely high approval ratings for his performance these past three weeks, digging somewhat deeper into the polls showcases a substantive shift in public opinion.&#160; From climate change to corruption &#8212; to funding for overseas abortions &#8212; Obama and the Democrats are paving the way for future electoral defeat.</p>
<p><span id="more-1105"></span></p>
<p>In an era when millions of Americans are suffering job losses and struggling to meet their most basic needs due to corruption and greed, Obama has pursued individuals who have defaulted on their taxes and evaded general responsibilities to serve in his cabinet.&#160; In no particular order there was Tom Daschle (&quot;was&quot; because he has now officially bowed out of consideration as a nominee for the position of Health and Human Services Secretary), who failed to pay over $130,000 in taxes.&#160; Obama had this to say in response to the outcry surrounding the potential cabinetee (<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/03/daschle-withdraws-nomination-health-human-services-secretary/">as per FOX News</a>):</p>
<blockquote><p>&quot;Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I,&quot; Obama said. He added that the &quot;mistake&quot; should not diminish the &quot;many contributions&quot; Daschle has made to the country. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>Then comes Nancy Killefer, who also withdrew her name for consideration for the position of &quot;chief performance officer.&quot;&#160; Killefer would have been the first to take this position, but tax problems also hampered her ability to accept it.&#160; And then there is Bill Richardson, who &#8212; according to FOX News &#8212; withdrew his name over an alleged kickback investigation:</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/03/white-house-performance-czar-nancy-killefer-withdraws-candidacy/">&quot;Obama&#8217;s first choice for commerce secretary, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, took his name out of consideration when his confirmation appeared headed toward complications because of a grand jury investigation over how state contracts were issued to political donors.&quot;</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>The confusing part of the nomination conundrum centers upon Obama&#8217;s promise to root out corruption.&#160; So far the only rooting that&#8217;s been done is for earmarks and fiscal irresponsibility (i.e. a stimulus plan that calls for $600 million for government vehicles and funding for overseas abortions).&#160; </p>
<p>Aside from these shining examples of hypocrisy stands America&#8217;s new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes.&#160; The irony behind this clearly centers upon the fact that Geithner, a man who did not pay his own taxes in a timely manner, is going to advise President Obama on all things economy: government fiscal policy, and domestic tax policy, amongst other responsibilities.&#160; And I thought Gregory B. Craig&#8217;s (Obama&#8217;s White House counsel) <a href="http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/11/24/white-house-counsel-pick-disgraceful-at-best-2/">defense of a presidential assass</a><a href="http://www.urbanconservative.com/2008/11/24/white-house-counsel-pick-disgraceful-at-best-2/">in</a> was an embarrassment to the Obama Administration.&#160; Talk about one-upping one&#8217;s self.</p>
<p>Clearly, the American people should have some concerns.&#160; One could argue that the aforementioned examples simply result from human error.&#160; But, upon examination there is a pattern building here that is disturbing at best.&#160; Even when one looks beyond the drama surrounding nominees and confirmations, the Democrats are making decisions that rail against the will of the people.&#160; </p>
<p>Unfortunately, Democrats have a habit of complaining about Republicans so fervently that they eventually convince the people, through the liberal media, that Republicans are ill-equipped to lead (and some are, but it&#8217;s nowhere near the proportion of Democrats).&#160; Then, when they finally convince their way into office, they spend the majority of their time undoing every conservative regulation they can get their hands on, while failing to take the time to formulate their own policies. It&#8217;s the ultimate na-na-na-na-boo-boo, only the Democrats are willing to throw money at any problem that their undoing of well-meaning conservative policies doesn&#8217;t immediately solve.&#160; </p>
<p>Just look at Obama&#8217;s major decisions thus far.&#160; According to polls released this week, the majority of Americans stand against Obama&#8217;s first two executive orders.&#160; As for the first of these orders &#8212; the president&#8217;s decision to provide funding to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortions &#8211;<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/03/poll-americans-oppose-obamas-executive-orders/">58% of Americans disagree with Obama; only 35% support the decision</a>.&#160; </p>
<p>And when it comes to the closure of Guantanamo Bay, <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/03/poll-americans-oppose-obamas-executive-orders/">50% of the American public opposes, with 44% supporting his decision to close Guantanamo&#8217;s doors within a year</a>.&#160; While his approval rating is currently high, the American people are already making it known that they disagree with his far-left agenda (these two orders are precipitating facets of his worldview).</p>
<p>Understanding ultraliberals is a daunting task.&#160; They will protest in the streets when Americans go overseas to defend inherent freedoms, but when it comes to international infanticide, they sit on the sidelines and stand idle.&#160; At the least, you&#8217;d think they&#8217;d at least spout off about the need to support the domestic abortions they support so fervently before shipping funding off to other countries.&#160; Apparently funding clinics that provide abortions in Zimbabwe is more important than funding our crumbling educational system.</p>
<p>Obama needs to get with the program.&#160; Instead of holding press conferences to tell us how he&#8217;d never have a lobbyist serve in his administration right before backtracking and hiring a lobbyist, he should spend his time making meaningful and well-planned policy.&#160; We need him to succeed, but with uncollected decision-making at the helm, success isn&#8217;t on the horizon.</p>
<p><strong><em>Read more from journalist and commentator Billy Hallowell at </em></strong><a href="http://www.williamhallowell.com"><strong><em>www.williamhallowell.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>. </em></strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/obama-democrats-refuse-to-listen-to-the-american-people/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Proclamation to American Conservatives</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/a-proclamation-to-american-conservatives/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/a-proclamation-to-american-conservatives/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Jan 2009 05:28:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/a-proclamation-to-american-conservatives/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>History was made this week when Barack Obama was inaugurated to serve as the nationâ€™s first African American president. Obamaâ€™s historic electoral victory showcases the nationâ€™s move beyond the stigmatization and segregation that existed just sixty years ago. It is a time of reflection not only for a country that has made significant sociopolitical progression, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>History was made this week when Barack Obama was inaugurated to serve as the nationâ€™s first African American president. Obamaâ€™s historic electoral victory showcases the nationâ€™s move beyond the stigmatization and segregation that existed just sixty years ago. It is a time of reflection not only for a country that has made significant sociopolitical progression, but also for a subset of the nation that has suffered two consecutive electoral losses â€“ the American conservative.</p>
<p>It can be said without a doubt that many conservatives are still disheartened by the results of the 2008 election. But, as President Obama settles into the White House and begins to govern, our disillusionment cannot overtake us. In 2000 and 2004, we felt a high level of political efficacy as our candidate elevated to serve in the nationâ€™s highest office. Today, this same efficacy is being experienced by American liberals, as Obama embodies the values and virtues this constituency embraces. Though these values often conflict with the notions we hold dear, we are all Americans and no matter how disappointed we are, we must endure. </p>
<p>It would clearly be a blind disservice to history and to this great nation to ignore the historical connotation of Obamaâ€™s victory. Ignorance to the historical relevancy of this time is, indeed, (and rightfully) hard to find. Most conservatives are, despite the sting that has come with suffering major defeat in recent elections, prepared to give President Obama the respect that American liberals ardently refused to give to President George W. Bush.</p>
<p>Surely we feel disheartened and anxious as we await the policy maneuvers and advances that are slated to violate our personal values and conservative character, but we cannot allow a difference of ideals to distract us from reformation. Instead of focusing our energies on how horrific we think Obama to be, we must work strenuously to showcase the relevancy of our policies and the potential results of our legislative potentialities.</p>
<p><span id="more-1100"></span></p>
<p>In the end, the American conservative, though contemporarily subjugated at the polls and in the realm of ideological policy influence, has the advantage. It is our values that work to hold the fabrics of society together; it is our conscious that collectively seeks to bolster Americaâ€™s most treasured ingenuities. Though we are underrepresented in the near-term, we are not forgotten. </p>
<p>As liberals celebrate their recent victory, we should be thankful for an opportunity to break free from the corruption and distractions that have permeated our party over the past decade. Now is the time to look beyond what has already passed and to focus on refining policy points, bringing the party together and harvesting the young leaders who will, in turn, assist America in sustaining and advancing her global position. </p>
<p>While American liberals have showcased their extreme excitement and awe over Obamaâ€™s win, the most inspirational result â€“ aside from the social barriers that our new president has broken, of course &#8212; has been the character, spirit and resilience of American conservatives. As we struggle to understand the devastating losses we suffered in the Congressional midterm of 2006 and in the subsequent presidential race of 2008, we remain hopeful and confident that our nation â€“ and political presence &#8212; will rebound.</p>
<p>Many of us, including former Republican vice-presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, have wished Obama well. When asked by Glen Beck this week if she considered Barack Obama <i>her</i> president, Palin replied, â€œAbsolutely. Yes, he is. We are all Americans and united we stand.â€ As can be easily recalled, the leftâ€™s often harsh attacks against President Bush have never been particularly fortuitous. As per the <i>New York Times</i>:</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/13/politics/13security.html">In January 2001, when the country was divided over a disputed presidential election, the newest development was security checkpoints along the parade route on Pennsylvania Avenue, from the Capitol to the White House, to minimize the ability of protesters to disrupt the procession. None did, although several people threw eggs and debris at Mr. Bush&#8217;s limousine as it left the Capitol grounds.</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As conservatives, there is no greater or more patriotic service we can do for our nation than to wish our new president well as he forges ahead into a mountainous terrain. Make no mistake: This is not to say that we should advocate ignorance when processing or addressing Obamaâ€™s often radical ideals; rather, as conservative Americans, we should come together to address the issues that are hampering our nationâ€™s progress using clear and rational means. After all, it is in our best interest for Obama to reach some level of success while in office.</p>
<p>Instead of attacking Obamaâ€™s presidential vehicle with eggs and tomatoes, letâ€™s prepare our arguments logically and present them with zest; letâ€™s ensure that we support our president to the highest degree possible, while working to ensure our voices are heard. The stage has already been set, but the play is yet to be written.</p>
<p>The jeers that President Bush received this week when he walked onto the inaugural stage served as a confirmation and a distinct reminder of the following ideal: The American conservative must patriotically reject concentrating our efforts on pointless acts of vilification. We must rise to the occasion. We must reject the â€œnot my presidentâ€ mantra that so many liberals have held dear these past eight years. And finally &#8212; we must restructure our party, while making our voices heard loud and clear to the executive and legislative branches.</p>
<p>Surely, we disagree with Obamaâ€™s policy assessments, but, we can fight these progressions the fair and rational way: By rebuilding and mobilizing our base, and attempting to bring in leaders who seek true change in future electoral cycles. Whether we wanted him or not, Barack Obama is our president. Now, letâ€™s get to work.</p>
<p><em>For more information on Billy Hallowell, go to </em><a href="http://www.williamhallowell.com"><em>http://www.williamhallowell.com</em></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/a-proclamation-to-american-conservatives/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Would-be Tragedy Inspires Reflection</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/would-be-tragedy-inspires-reflection/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/would-be-tragedy-inspires-reflection/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:21:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/would-be-tragedy-inspires-reflection/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>On Thursday, a feeling of relief overtook anxious New Yorkers when news reports explained that a flock of geese most likely caused the emergency crash-landing of U.S. Airways flight 1549. This news, accompanying images of the safe exit of all 155 passengers, eased the tensions of a great many people who feared that the crash [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On Thursday, a feeling of relief overtook anxious New Yorkers when news reports explained that a flock of geese most likely caused the emergency crash-landing of U.S. Airways flight 1549. This news, accompanying images of the safe exit of all 155 passengers, eased the tensions of a great many people who feared that the crash was a replica of the events that occurred on September 11, 2001. Thankfully, there was no terroristic catalyst involved.</p>
<p>I often find myself unaware or overlooking the fact that I live and work in a city that has remained a major target of potential terrorist attacks. While it would be foolish to continuously focus on this undeniable fact, it is important to maintain a healthy level of personal awareness and to make occasional consideration of the events and ramifications of the attack that occurred more than seven years ago. During and in the aftermath of last weekâ€™s would-be tragedy, it was impossible to avoid this awareness.</p>
<p><span id="more-1098"></span></p>
<p>At the same time that flight 1549 splashed into the middle of the Hudson River, I was fast at work at my office in Queens. Upon receiving a text message from my father that read: â€œThere is a plane in the Hudson.â€&#160; I notified other staff members and went directly to the television, where most of the staff had come to see what was going on. And what a relief it was to see the end result &#8211; every man and woman exiting the plane without a single casualty.</p>
<p>Living in the post 9-11 world and sitting in an office with windows that show the Manhattan skyline devoid of the Twin Towers, my first thought prior to turning on the television was â€œOh no! Not again.â€ Luckily, my first reaction was anything but valid. We were truly lucky &#8211; as were the inhabitants of flight 1549.</p>
<p>The relief I felt when I saw these men and women being brought to safety was immense. And while I ventured back to my desk, I couldnâ€™t help but think about the horror our nation has gone through this past decade. Had this crash-landing occurred in 2000, the words â€œact of terrorismâ€ wouldnâ€™t have so readily materialized in my mind. The world has truly changed.</p>
<p>With a new administration coming in, America cannot afford to cut loose when it comes to protecting the homeland. It is these thoughts that have been going through my mind since Thursday afternoon.</p>
<p>Ironically, this morning, I read a short post on <em>The New York Timesâ€™ City Room</em> blog entitled, â€œSept. 11 Death Toll Rises by One, to 2,752.â€ The piece read:</p>
<blockquote><p><a href="http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/16/sept-11-death-toll-rises-by-one-to-2752/">Leon Bernard Heyward did not die until last October, at the age of 45. But his name was added Friday to the official list of people who died as a result of the attack on Sept. 11, 2001</a>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Heyward was exposed to dust while working at Ground Zero. Although his death comes years after the event that has forever changed America, he is yet another hero who is being counted among those murdered by radical Islamic fascists on U.S. soil. His name is not being invoked in this case to create anger in readers; rather, it is being presented to serve as a reminder of the sacrifices our nation was forced to make &#8211; sacrifices that continue to plague many of the men and women who volunteered during the aftermath of the attacks.</p>
<p>Thankfully, flight 1549 landed safely and has been slated an accident. Luckily, we have not had to endure another 9-11 and I pray that we will never have to again. The new administration &#8211; and most importantly Americans &#8211; mustnâ€™t forget what happened in 2001. While it often seems embedded in the past, families, individuals and policy-makers need to remember all that was lost so that our nation does not become complacent again. </p>
<div class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent" style="0px">Technorati Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tags/9%2f11" rel="tag">9/11</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Flight+1549" rel="tag">Flight 1549</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Hudson" rel="tag">Hudson</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/NYC" rel="tag">NYC</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Terrorism" rel="tag">Terrorism</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/would-be-tragedy-inspires-reflection/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>White House Counsel Pick: Disgraceful At Best</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/white-house-counsel-pick-disgraceful-at-best/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/white-house-counsel-pick-disgraceful-at-best/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 23 Nov 2008 13:06:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/white-house-counsel-pick-disgraceful-at-best/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>Barack Obama has broken barriers with his history-making electoral victory and for that he deserves a congratulatory note.&#160; But now that the seemingly endless campaign has wrapped, the adoration he was afforded by American media outlets hasnâ€™t subsided.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are too busy basking in the glories of Obamaâ€™s sweeping success to maintain even [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Barack Obama has broken barriers with his history-making electoral victory and for that he deserves a congratulatory note.&#160; But now that the seemingly endless campaign has wrapped, the adoration he was afforded by American media outlets hasnâ€™t subsided.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, mainstream media outlets are too busy basking in the glories of Obamaâ€™s sweeping success to maintain even a base level of scrutiny. Of course, this inability to be objective did not suddenly emerge following Obamaâ€™s victory; the media have been enamored by Obama since early 2007, as they have created and sustained what appears to be a lasting love affair.</p>
<p>While I can easily delve into a long-winded diatribe about the mediaâ€™s insane infatuation with Obama, Iâ€™m not sure that it would be necessary to do so.&#160; After all, most <a href="http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/general_current_events/media/americans_see_liberal_media_bias_on_tv_news">polls show that the American people are more than aware of the mediaâ€™s leftist inclinations</a>.</p>
<p>From August until November, the mainstream media lambasted Gov. Sarah Palin.&#160; From the failure to quickly correct the erroneous (not to mention hateful) stories about Trig Palinâ€™s birth mother to the continued sexism that was prevalent in the majority of news stories, the media gleefully chiseled away at Palinâ€™s image.&#160; Meanwhile, Barack Obama escaped without a scratch, as media outlets actually went out of their way to baselessly portray him as a reformer who is sure to bring â€œhopeâ€ and â€œchangeâ€ to Washington.</p>
<p> <span id="more-1069"></span>
<p>Following suit with their pre-election adoration, the media have literally ignored the ironic picks Obama has made for his incoming admin posts.&#160; The man who promised us â€œchangeâ€ has thus far called upon Washington insiders (i.e. former Clintonians) to fill cabinet posts.&#160; While this may be looked upon as a smart move in terms of nominating individuals who have a record of what some on the left call success, it exemplifies the â€œmore of the sameâ€ attitude Obama has railed against so enthusiastically in his rhetoric.</p>
<p>Aside from the mediaâ€™s failure to critique this blatant fact, there is one pick, in particular, that has barely been vetted by the media.&#160; On November 17<sup>th</sup>, the <em>Politico</em> reported that Obama will select Gregory B. Craig for the White House counsel post.&#160; For those readers who are not familiar with the role of the White House counsel, the <em>Politico</em> explains:</p>
<blockquote><p>â€œ<a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15663.html">The White House counsel, among the most powerful members of the West Wing inner circle, serves as the presidentâ€™s lawyer, giving him legal advice and handling pardons and conflict-of-interest issues.</a> â€œ</p>
</blockquote>
<p>While this might seem arbitrary to many Americans who are less than familiar with Craig, a cursory look at his past clientele is stunning.&#160; According to the Williams and Connolly LLP web site (Craig is a partner at the firm),&#160; â€œ<a href="http://www.wc.com/attorney-GregoryCraig.html">In 2000, Mr. Craig successfully represented Elian Gonzalezâ€™s father, Mr. Juan Miguel Gonzalez, in administrative and court proceedings involving Mr. Gonzalezâ€™s effort to regain custody of his son, Elian.</a>â€œ&#160; Yes, this is the same Elian Gonzalez who was sent back to communist Cuba after his mother died trying to bring him to the United States.</p>
<p>Additionally, Craig represented Kofi Annan, the former Secretary-General of the United Nations, <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/17/obama-picks-presidential-assassins-lawyer-as-white-house-counsel/">â€œâ€¦to defend his interests in the Volcker Commission probe of the Oil-for-Food scandal, which put billions of dollars into Saddam Husseinâ€™s pockets while providing cash for Annanâ€™s son, his deputies, and some allege Annan himself.</a>â€</p>
<p>Despite the fact that Craig served on Obamaâ€™s campaign, he also represented Bill Clinton during his impeachment trial (he deflected from Hillary Clintonâ€™s campaign during the primaries).</p>
<p>And it gets worse.&#160; There are two clients who make the others shrink to mere obscurity.&#160; The first â€” Pedro Miguel GonzÃ¡lez&#160; â€“ is a fugitive who is under federal indictment for <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-panama_14edi.ART.State.Edition1.3788f3d.html">his alleged 1992 murder of Zak HernÃ¡ndez</a>, a U.S. Army sergeant.&#160; While <em><a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-panama_14edi.ART.State.Edition1.3788f3d.html">The Dallas Morning News called upon Barack Obama</a></em> to ask Craig to choose between the Obama campaign and representation of GonzÃ¡lez, <em>HotAir</em> reports that there is no easy-to-find documentation on whether Craig did, indeed, drop the case.</p>
<p>The last client is indefinitely the most concerning.&#160; Craig represented John Hickley, Jr., the man who attempted to assassinate President Ronald Reagan.&#160; Thanks to Craig, Hinckley was granted an insanity defense.</p>
<p>I must agree with HotAirâ€™s Ed Morrissey: <a href="http://hotair.com/archives/2008/11/17/obama-picks-presidential-assassins-lawyer-as-white-house-counsel/">This pick is disgraceful</a>.&#160; Can you imagine what would have happened if McCain (pending he won the election) chose someone with a similar past?&#160; Mainstream media outlets would rampantly run headlines like â€œMcCain Plans to Nominate Wannabe Presidential Assassin,â€ â€œMany Call McCain Pick a Disgraceâ€ or â€œMcCain Pick Raises Eyebrows.â€&#160; But, in this case, the presses are relatively silent.&#160; Surprise!</p>
<p>While Gregory Craig has surely had a successful career and his talents in the legal realm should not be downplayed, the moral fabrics associated with the clientele he has willingly chosen fall short of the â€œhopeâ€ and â€œchangeâ€ Obama has pledged to bring to Washington.&#160; This pick is indefensible at best and the media ought to report on it more fervently.</p>
<p><em>Read more from journalist/blogger Billy Hallowell at </em><a href="http://www.williamhallowell.com"><em>www.williamhallowell.com</em></a><em>. </em></p>
<div class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent" style="0px">Technorati Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tags/billyhallowell" rel="tag">billyhallowell</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/gregory+craig" rel="tag">gregory craig</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/barack+obama" rel="tag">barack obama</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/president-elect" rel="tag">president-elect</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/white-house-counsel-pick-disgraceful-at-best/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Finally, a Journalist Does Her Job</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/finally-a-journalist-does-her-job/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/finally-a-journalist-does-her-job/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Oct 2008 03:04:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/finally-a-journalist-does-her-job/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[


<p> 
<p>When asked tough questions, itâ€™s best to become agitated, refuse to answer in a coherent manner, ask â€œIs this a joke?â€ and then impose an absurdly stifling restriction on the outlet responsible for the challenging interview (make that two outlets).&#160; Because banning journalists who ask tough questions is exactly what our democracy needs, right?&#160; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<div class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent" style="0px">
<div></div>
</div>
<p> 
<p>When asked tough questions, itâ€™s best to become agitated, refuse to answer in a coherent manner, ask â€œIs this a joke?â€ and then impose an absurdly stifling restriction on the outlet responsible for the challenging interview (make that two outlets).&#160; Because banning journalists who ask tough questions is exactly what our democracy needs, right?&#160; Wrong.&#160; </p>
<p>But, I suppose we cannot blame Biden, alone, for his childish reaction.&#160; Until now, the press has continuously stated and restated its love and adoration for the most liberal candidate in history to seek the American presidency.&#160; So, after months of the media doting all over Barack Obama and company itâ€™s no wonder Joe Biden was surprised when he was confronted with journalistic integrity.&#160; </p>
<p>So, for the sake of brevity <a href="http://www.wftv.com/station/1874549/detail.html">I must give Barbara West of WFTV the <em>William H. Hallowell III Journalist of the Year</em> award for actually doing her job</a>.&#160; Journalists are supposed to challenge candidates, not ignore their inconsistencies and blunders. </p>
<p>Perhaps the most perplexing issue at hand is not Bidenâ€™s absurd reaction, rather it is the hypocrisy that stems from the Obama camp concerning transparency and access.&#160; After weeks of criticism from the Obama camp over the McCain campaignâ€™s shielding of Gov. Sarah Palin, weâ€™re seeing a side of Obama that is pretty opaque.&#160; And itâ€™s utterly ironic.&#160; </p>
<p>After all, isnâ€™t this the man who promised to air our national laundry in the most public of all forums (donâ€™t get me wrong; Iâ€™m all for transparency, but I am of the opinion that Obama is more about instilling pathos in his followers than he is about actions)?&#160; </p>
<p>The rest of the transparency community might be duped, but Iâ€™m not.&#160; Sure, the McCain camp shielded Palin from the media and that was a catastrophic mistake, but to literally prevent certain outlets from interviewing campaign officials â€“ that, my friends, is communistic at best.&#160; This isnâ€™t China.&#160; Some one better get Obama and Biden the memo.</p>
<p><strong><em>For more information on Billy Hallowell, go to </em></strong><a href="http://www.billyhallowell.com"><strong><em>www.billyhallowell.com</em></strong></a><strong><em>. </em></strong></p>
<div class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent" style="0px">Technorati Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tags/barbara+west" rel="tag">barbara west</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/billy+hallowell" rel="tag">billy hallowell</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/obama" rel="tag">obama</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/biden" rel="tag">biden</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/election+2008" rel="tag">election 2008</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/static+news" rel="tag">static news</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/finally-a-journalist-does-her-job/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Voter&#8217;s Survival Kit: Ten Things You Need to Know about Health Care</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/voters-survival-kit-ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-health-care/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/voters-survival-kit-ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-health-care/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 26 Oct 2008 17:58:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Health Care]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/voters-survival-kit-ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-health-care/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By Scott Bittle on October 23, 2008 (Cross posted at Public Agenda Online)</p>
<p>Too often, trying to follow the presidential campaign debate is like coming in on the middle of a movie. You can get the gist of what&#8217;s going on, maybe, but you know that major plot points slipped past you â€“ you know you [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By Scott Bittle on October 23, 2008 (<a href="http://publicagenda.org/citizen/electionguides/healthcare">Cross posted at Public Agenda Online</a>)</p>
<p>Too often, trying to follow the presidential campaign debate is like coming in on the middle of a movie. You can get the gist of what&#8217;s going on, maybe, but you know that major plot points slipped past you â€“ you <i>know</i> you could figure out who the murderer is, if you&#8217;d just been able to catch the first 15 minutes. </p>
<p>The basic reason is that the candidates, even when they talk about the issues, assume you already know the basics. The candidates figure they don&#8217;t have time to explain the background to you, and they figure it might bore you anyway, so they jump right into what <i>their</i> plan would do. That&#8217;s particularly unfair because the politicians themselves often are working off cheat sheets or talking points that give them the key points to make. Their staff has done the digging; the politician gets the bullet-point version.</p>
<p>Take health care, for example. The plans put forth by Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain are miles apart in ideological terms, and wickedly complicated in their details. But do the campaigns or the media spend much time stepping back and looking at what&#8217;s going on with the health care system, or why it needs fixing in the first place? Not really.</p>
<p>So here&#8217;s ten things you need to know about the state of the U.S. health care system. This is where we stand as a nation on this issue, and with these key facts in hand you can start to get your mind around the very complicated options the presidential candidates are putting out there. For a start:</p>
<p><b>Some 47 million Americans</b>, 15.8% of the population, donâ€™t have health insurance.</p>
<p><b>These are mainly people in jobs that donâ€™t offer benefits:</b> people between jobs, part-timers, the self-employed and lots of folks who work for small businesses. The number of uninsured may well go up over the next year because of the bad economy, as businesses lay off workers or cut back benefits.</p>
<p><b>The U.S. government spends nearly $700 billion each year on health care</b>, mainly for Medicare (which covers nearly all older Americans), Medicaid (which helps cover those who are very poor) and care for veterans.</p>
<p><b>Meanwhile private health costs amount to about $1.1 trillion every year</b>. About six in ten Americans get health insurance from their employer.</p>
<p><b>And just in case you hadnâ€™t noticed, individuals shell out for health care too.</b> Itâ€™s usually for deductibles, co-pays, premiums and drugs that arenâ€™t covered by insurance. For an unfortunate group of Americans, itâ€™s what they have to pay when they have a very serious illness or injury and their insurance basically runs out.</p>
<p><b>The U.S. health care system is incredibly complicated</b>. Essentially, itâ€™s not a â€˜systemâ€™ at all â€“ itâ€™s a patchwork of private insurance and government programs like Medicare. There are holes in the system â€“ and thereâ€™s duplication as well.</p>
<p><b>Health care costs have been rising faster than inflation for decades</b> (they went up 6.7 percent in 2006). This will probably get worse. Government experts project health spending could double in 10 years</p>
<p><b>This presents a huge burden for business and itâ€™s a budget-buster for the government</b>, but frankly youâ€™ll be on the line too. Business faced with spiraling health care costs sometimes cut benefits or raises or may even cut back their work force. Government needs to get the money from someone to cover health care costs. Guess who?</p>
<p><b>Most experts say expensive new treatments, procedures and drugs, along with an aging population are the major reason health care costs are shooting upward</b>, but everyone also agrees that thereâ€™s a lot of inefficiency in the system too.</p>
<p><b>The plans of both presidential candidates are going to cost a lot of money</b>. And given the staggering projections for the federal deficit over the next few years, money is going to be tight. So the government&#8217;s going to have to find a way to pay any reform plan.</p>
<p>How do we know this? Here are our sources:</p>
<p><a href="http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin06.html">Census Bureau, Health Insurance 2006; </a><a href="http://www.cms.hhs.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/">Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, National Health Expenditures Data;</a> <a href="http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08783r.pdf">Government Accountability Office, The Nation&#8217;s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook April 2008;</a> <a href="http://www.kff.org/insurance/7031/index.cfm">Kaiser Family Foundation, Trends and Indicators in the Changing Health Care Marketplace</a>; <a href="http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/UploadedPDF/411750_updated_candidates_summary.pdf">Tax Policy Center, Analysis of the Presidential Candidates&#8217; Tax Plans,</a></p>
<p>Want to think over the options for actually fixing this problem? Have a look at Public Agenda&#8217;s Voter Survival Kit on health care, <a href="http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/electionguides/healthcare">Your Money or Your Life</a>, where we lay out different options, with potential costs and tradeoffs. And to check out the candidate plans in detail, visit the <a href="http://www.johnmccain.com">McCain</a> and <a href="http://www.barackobama.com">Obama</a> web sites. </p>
<p>&#160;</p>
<div class="wlWriterEditableSmartContent" style="0px">Technorati Tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Barack+Obama" rel="tag">Barack Obama</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/health+care" rel="tag">health care</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/health+insurance" rel="tag">health insurance</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/John+McCain" rel="tag">John McCain</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Politics" rel="tag">Politics</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/presidential+campaign" rel="tag">presidential campaign</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/presidential+election" rel="tag">presidential election</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/uninsured" rel="tag">uninsured</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/voter" rel="tag">voter</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/Voter's+Survival+Kit" rel="tag">Voter&#8217;s Survival Kit</a>,<a href="http://technorati.com/tags/voters" rel="tag">voters</a></div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/voters-survival-kit-ten-things-you-need-to-know-about-health-care/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Understanding Americaâ€™s Fiscal Woes</title>
		<link>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/understanding-america%e2%80%99s-fiscal-woes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/understanding-america%e2%80%99s-fiscal-woes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 Oct 2008 04:52:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Billy Hallowell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[billy hallowell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Economy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[facing up]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[public agenda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[voter survival guide]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/understanding-america%e2%80%99s-fiscal-woes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>With the release of the â€œVoterâ€™s Survival Kit: The Smart Guide to What the Politicians Wonâ€™t Tell You,â€ Public Agenda is once again engaging constituents and providing a much needed non-partisan balance in the political sphere. The kit is comprised of non-partisan issue guides that focus on specific challenges: the economy, immigration, taxes, spending and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the release of the â€œVoterâ€™s Survival Kit: The Smart Guide to What the Politicians Wonâ€™t Tell You,â€ Public Agenda is once again engaging constituents and providing a much needed non-partisan balance in the political sphere. The kit is comprised of non-partisan issue guides that focus on specific challenges: the economy, immigration, taxes, spending and the national debt, climate change, Iraq and health care.</p>
<p>Surely these are all major topics of concern, but with the recent fiscal meltdown and continued economic strain, Iâ€™d like to encourage you to <a href="http://publicagenda.org/citizen/electionguides/economy">check out â€œThe Economyâ€ issue guide</a> (be sure to read them all, but this guide is an absolute essential if you want a concise overview of the current fiscal mess). While learning about the economy can be a daunting task (letâ€™s face it, itâ€™s not the most exciting topic in the world), Public Agenda has made understanding the issue at hand a simple and painless process. After all, how can the American electorate make an informed vote on the issues if weâ€™re constantly relying on the imbalanced spin we hear in the debates and on the campaign trail?</p>
<p>â€œThe Economyâ€ issue guide gets down to the point, as it provides the basic facts about Americaâ€™s economic debacle, potential directions the nation can take and much more. If you are a citizen, politician, political news junkie, blogger or professional who simply wants a reliable overview, this is a must-read guide.</p>
<p><strong>The Fix Weâ€™re in Now<br />
</strong></p>
<p>In the first section of the guide, youâ€™ll be presented with the fact that 12% of Americans live below the poverty line (gasp). And if that doesnâ€™t sound scary enough the actual number â€“ 36 million Americans â€“ is chilling (to some degree, this is actually a longitudinal improvement, as youâ€™ll read). And then thereâ€™s savings and health care. As you may already know, Americans are borrowing more and saving less and a chunk of the American public â€“ 16% â€“ is uninsured.</p>
<p>And this is only a small piece of the puzzle. The economy is a multifaceted issue; politicians will need to free themselves from wasteful spending habits, while complicating their understanding of the national and world economies so that fiscal rejuvenation can improve the current mess.</p>
<p><strong>How We Got Here<br />
</strong></p>
<p>While understanding the mess is important, getting some background on how we let our country get to this point is essential. Public Agendaâ€™s guide provides this important information. While we need politicians to set policies that will improve Americaâ€™s fiscal footing, we also need to consider the fact that private companies, investors, consumers and workers all have a role in the process. The guide discusses the fact that while the U.S. economy actually grew for the first half of this year (yes, I said <em>grew</em> ) and the productivity of the American worker continues to increase, prices are rising, weâ€™re overstretched on credit and our government is more than $10 trillion in debt. The guide makes clear that Americaâ€™s economy continues to show strength in many areas even as our economyâ€™s vulnerabilities become harder to deny.</p>
<p><strong>Whatâ€™s the Plan?<br />
</strong></p>
<p>Okay, so, economically speaking, things arenâ€™t the best. While driving that point home isnâ€™t too difficult in these strained times, talking about solutions is a bit more challenging. Public Agenda provides some choices that are championed as beacons of hope for repairing Americaâ€™s economic system. While I wonâ€™t delve too deeply into these recommendations, Iâ€™ll present them here:</p>
<ul>
<li>Keep taxes low and government involvement at a minimum so the free market can work</li>
<li>Focus on creating good jobs at home and securing a safety net for all Americans</li>
<li>Get the U.S. back on track to compete in the global economy by investing in key areas and growing â€œ21<sup>st</sup> Century Industryâ€ in America.</li>
</ul>
<p>Public Agenda does not advocate for any one of these approaches.  A non-partisan review of each is undertaken.  Be sure to <a href="http://publicagenda.org/citizen/electionguides/economy">check out all of the relevant information on these potential â€œfixes.â€</a></p>
<p>With economic strain comes the need for an informed electorate. Kudos to Public Agenda for formulating a guide that provides the information and perspective needed to equip voters to address the economy (and other relevant issues) during this election cycle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.washingtonhotlist.com/understanding-america%e2%80%99s-fiscal-woes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

