The debate over America's fiscal woes continues to intensify. Interestingly, Independents and Democrats are highly favorable of raising taxes on the "wealthy" (any income above $250,000). Republicans, on the other hand, disagree with such a proposal. According to The Hill,
On taxes, the poll reported that roughly two out of three registered voters — 64 percent — would be in favor of increasing taxes on annual income over $250,000. President Obama reiterated in his deficit-reduction speech last week that he favored allowing taxes to rise on families in that income level.
I discussed this subject on FOX News Live this past Tuesday. Here's a clip:
Melissa Clouthier is publishing a daily (and highly useful) recap of news and political happenings. I'll be publishing it here each day and encouraging you all to follow Melissa on Twitter. Check out today's headlines and info (brought to you by Melissa!) below:
Hello fellow sensible people,
Wisconsin is still not decided. A couple thoughts: 1) How could the GOP not get the vote out better? 2) When it's this close do you ever question who will win? Yeah, me neither. Also, the Democrat-controlled Senate, along with Republican Susan Collins rejected a GOP amendment that would have stopped the EPA from trying to end-around failed Cap-n-Trade legislation. Obama bureaucracies are doing work the legislators are refusing to do. All in all, a crappy political day.
D.C. is nigh unto a full conniption considering aShutdown. This irritates me. They've had 4% unemployment on the back of the taxpayer when some states have unemployment rates up to 25% in some sectors. A week without pay? I know, horrors. How does it feel? It feels tense. I know this, see, because I'm a small business person and when we go on vacation for a week, guess who doesn't get paid? I have a difficult time feeling sorry. Also, take away the pay of Congress, while you're at it.
Boehner got a full three minutes on the phone with the President today. Lucky him! Tonight, Reid and Boehner are meeting the Prez in the Oval office for a chit-chat to stop the potential shutdown.
Before I get more irritated, I'll just give some links to helpful and/or more fun info.
So, while the country is going down the debt toilet, DC inhabitants are worried about a shutdown. Please remember: The Democrats had the House, Senate and Presidency all of 2010 and couldn't find a way to put together a budget the whole year. It reached a crisis in October of 2010, and they still couldn't do it. The Republicans in the House had a budget 45 days ago and the Dem-controlled Senate is dragging their collective feet. The Democrats need to grow up.
If left unaddressed, the Republican Party’s inability to connect with young voters will have catastrophic political consequences for the GOP. In 2008, the vast majority of America’s Millennial Generation – also known as "Generation Y," "the 9/11 Generation" and "Generation Next" – chose Barack Obama over the older and, no doubt, wiser John McCain.
If Republicans want to win in 2012 and beyond, they’ll need to shift strategy and rethink the ways in which they engage young voters. Click to read more...
This will be, perhaps, my shortest entry ever (I emphasize "perhaps"). Over the past few weeks, I've been perplexed by and discouraged over calls from the right to exclude factions of the conservative movement from this year's CPAC conference.
Conservatives are walking a dangerous tightrope if they (we) begin cutting people with whom we disagree out of the conversation. And let's face it -- the discussions we, as Americans and as conservatives, need to be having about our country supersede any qualms some may have about specific issues (i.e. gay marriage, Iraq, etc).
Why are some so ardently opposed to the mere sharing of different ideals -- ideals that happen to contradict only one segment of the conservative movement's mantra? In my view, we need all of the rational people we can get to be in on the very important discussions about our nation's future that need to be happening. Sure, we may disagree on some things, but isn't that what makes our democracy (and movement) great?
Parties hinge on strategic values, but political philosophies can -- and often do -- evolve. Certainly, the bedrock of the conservative movement is small government and a strong national defense. While these values cannot be amended or abandoned without the house collapsing, the other policies and ideals that surround them, while important, should be open to discussion, reformation and debate.
By calling to exclude people who embrace the foundations of the movement, some are evoking less-than-palatable leftist strategy. Let's be open to discussion, prepared for debate and ready to defend our values (and that goes for all sides).
Perhaps some are too afraid to see their ideals tested; I'd argue that an inability or reluctance to defend one's values is cowardly at best. Melissa Clouthier has an excellent piece on this subject here.
Suck it up, haters. I love George W. Bush and I’m not afraid to admit it, nor am I hesitant to explain why. This piece is by no means an attempt to convince leftist adherents to abandon their false perceptions of America’s 43rd president (that’s a hapless task and I’m well beyond believing in my power to persuade people who base their stances on vapidity). Rather, I am penning this piece because I truly believe that a great disservice has been done to a man who gave his all to protect his nation – a man who, despite what critics say, was and is highly intelligent, capable and intrinsically-tuned in to the nation’s needs.
Unfortunately, there is a leftist mindset that contends that Bush is an unintelligent buffoon who meandered his way into the White House. Not only is this incredibly simplistic, but it flies in the face of rational thought. One cannot become president – I repeat – one cannot assume the highest post in the nation — if he or she is certifiably idiotic. It takes intelligence, charisma and a sharp mind to survive reporters, primaries, debates and other electoral mayhem. Winning over the American public is a wretchedly difficult task. George W. Bush accomplished all of this, and more – twice (or for those who still believe that Bush “stole” the 2000 election we can contend that he accomplished all of this at least once).
No one is perfect; presidents aren’t immune to the fallible nature of the human spirit. Surely, President Bush made mistakes along the way. The mismanagement of the War on Terror. Increased government spending. The list goes on. There are certainly fair criticisms, as there would be for any leader. That in mind, many liberals fail to afford Bush the grace and gratitude he’s due. This, in itself, is disturbing, disrespectful and vehemently vicious all wrapped into a detestable package of partisan rot. The man kept America safe for the majority of his tenure. Shouldn’t that count for something?
While his national security record stands for itself (and I’ll touch upon it later), perhaps the most attractive attribute our former president demonstrated was his stellar character. Now, before those on the left cardiac arrest at the audacity of my compliment, consider, as an anecdotal, the admirable decision Bush made in the wake of President Obama’s historic victory. For the past 19 months, instead of responding to Obama and the Democrats’ childish attacks and incessant blame for everything from financial meltdowns to the very destruction of the American ideal, Bush has remained quiet, composed and observant. Rather that criticize, he has allowed Obama to govern as he see fits. Even the most ardent Bush-basher must admire the sheer class and composure that governed our former president’s silence.
Sharply contrasting the unity Bush fostered in the days following 9/11 and the classy sentiment through which he approached his successor’s presidency, Obama has exploited every opportunity to drive a partisan wedge into the heart of American electorate; he has continually blamed Bush and the Republicans for our nation’s ills. Yet, everyone with one cent’s worth of a brain knows that both parties have contributed to America’s dramatic and grandiose sociopolitical ills. Obama’s railing on against the Republicans has been reminiscent of a campaign stump speech stuck on repeat. It’s unneeded and, frankly, it’s un-presidential.
At the end of the day, George W. Bush possesses a level of class that is superior to both Clinton and Obama. Anyone who argues the contrary needs to remove the partisan blinders and learn some fair assessment skills. I’m not asking that you like the guy, but I am asking for you to give credit where it’s due.
After Bush’s stellar character comes his conviction. His belief in freedom colored his presidency and was often the focal point of his most contentious policy decisions. It was his conviction that led America (back) to the Middle East following 9/11. His tireless goal to democratize theocratic and radical regimes was rooted in a thirst for improved human rights and lasting peace and prosperity in a region that has been strewn with violence since the beginning of time. Feel free to agree or disagree with his decision to invade, then stay the course, but one fact is undeniable: George W. Bush protected domestic interests and American lives.
He refused to give up on the notion that America could and inevitably would make a difference in the Middle East. At worst, he was determined to finish the job he set out to complete in the first place. In the end, he kept his promise to Iraq, which is surely respectable. He’s a man of his word (another reason I admire him). Oh, and for my liberal detractors: Bush never lied about WMD; Saddam Hussein did.
Here in America, it was Bush’s conviction and determination that also made it possible for citizens to carry about their daily business without suffering any post-9/11 attacks at the hands of terrorist nutjobs. And for those Democrats and liberal elite who accused Bush and the Republicans of overstating the terror threat for political gain, I point you to the countless domestic plots we’ve seen since Bush left office. Terror was and continues to be a real threat. President Bush understood this and worked to his utmost to protect the public, while continuously refining the systems through which he accomplished the task.
Following Bush’s character, conviction and determination comes his leadership style. While many on the left contend that Bush was a puppet whose strings were controlled by Cheney and Co., this is figment comprised of “sheet inaccuracy.” Bush was decisive and at the helm; his decisions were controversial. When Bush left office, his approval rating was abysmal. It was at that time that the American public had become weary. Despite a lack of support from the American people on the War on Terror, Iraq and other policy decisions, the president pushed forward in light of his principles and ideals.
While we can agree that there are certainly downsides to this sort of leadership style, there’s also something admirable about it. When we elect officials, we place our utmost trust in them. A president must make tough decisions for the welfare and benefit of the people whom he represents. By these same standards, I must give President Obama credit for his tireless work. While I disagreed with the stimulus and the health care overhaul (as did the majority of the American public), I can respect the determination and goodwill through which he pushed those measures. Obama believed fully in both causes, as Bush did in Operation Iraqi Freedom and the War on Terror. In this regard, the presidents certainly share similarities in their leadership styles.
In the end, Bush was realistic in recognizing and reiterating the notion that radical Islamic fundamentalists hate America because of what she stands for. And let’s not forget President’s Bush’s historic assistance in fighting global HIV/AIDS, his accomplishments in the chronic homelessness arena and his attempt to reform Social Security. These are a few specific accomplishments our former president deserves accolades for. But most of all, President Bush has always had a way with the American people. He’s upfront, transparent and open. His recent media interviews reflect these sentiments and set him apart from other politicians. While I disagreed with some of his presidential actions and inactions, I can’t help but love the guy. Plus, I’ve yet to hear compelling reasons why I shouldn’t.
Yesterday, Politico analyzed some intriguing polling numbers. Like many of the results we’ve seen the past few months, November is looking like it’s going to be pretty difficult for Democrats. According to Politico,
A new Gallup poll released Monday shows Republicans with a record 10-point edge over Democrats on the "generic ballot" test — the question of whether voters prefer a Democratic or Republican congressional candidate. It’s the largest GOP polling edge at this stage in the 68 years of the generic ballot poll.
While no one can know for sure what the midterms will yield, public angst following the highly-contested stimulus, followed by health care legislation, the BP oil spill and a variety of other minor blips along the way, have all contributed to a sense that a “new kind of politics” is once again being sought out by the American people.
Perhaps most perplexing is the six-point lead Democrats had in the poll this past July; today, the proportions stand at 51% for Republicans and 41% for Democrats. This erosion is leading some liberal strategists, according to Politico, to quietly concede that the Republicans may very well capture the House in November. Perhaps this shift in support for the GOP is coming from mere desperation surrounding a bad economy and a creeping sense that many facets of our society are all failing simultaneously. Or, perhaps the American people are reacting to what they (we) see as bad policy.
Where do you stand when it comes to Republicans vs. Democrats? Which party would you put your support behind and why? Be sure to comment and share your perspective below!
When it comes to public perception of late, the plurality sees the nation’s current status in a fairly negative light. A recent FOX News poll finds that 62 percent of the American voting public believes that the United States is “on the decline.” Only 26 percent see America as “on the rise.”
While Democrats are split (and Republicans, who are more negative regarding what is happening in the nation, lean more on the side of “decline”), the Independent take is startling – 64 percent believe the nation is “on the decline.”
While the vast majority of the country sees any move toward socialism in a negative light, only 49 percent of Democrats agree. The “only” here may seem like an overstatement, but Democrats are the only group falling below the halfway mark on that indicator. Furthermore, the left is continuously accused of supporting socialistic policies, thus this finding is potentially damaging to Democrats and liberals alike. While somewhat surprising at first pass, it follows in line with popular stereotypes and, perhaps, a growing reality.
Am I the only one who cringes every time I hear the Democrats claim that the Republicans single-handedly plunged America into an ocean of debt and fiscal despair? If we’re going to be real, no matter where we are ideologically, we must accept the fact that both parties played a part in bringing us to this juncture. Last week, in response to House Minority Leader John Boehner’s insinuation that President Obama’s economic team step down and that the Bush tax cuts should be renewed indefinitely, Biden had plenty to say. According to CNN,
Biden echoed the Democratic message that aims to remind Americans that Republicans held power in the run-up to the recent economic downturn.
First and foremost, the Democrats must be suffering from short-term memory loss. It was in 2006 that Republicans suffered the same fate the Democrats appear poised to endure this November – midterm losses. Thus, Democrats have actually “held power” since 2006 (not 2008 as they incessantly attempt to reinforce). Unfortunately, the left’s cronies appear to be more concerned with political posturing than actually tackling the issues at hand (and I’m not saying that Republicans are perfect by any measure).
Bush and Congress overspent (though I truly liked Bush's leadership style – and his overall demeanor). Obama (and Congress, again) are, collectively, a money spewing machine. At the end of the day, all parties are responsible, as are the American people for enabling such irresponsibility. Both parties: Take responsibly. America: Let’s make our voices heard in November. It’s time we address our financial burden – before it’s too late. For a non-partisan explanation of our nation’s fiscal woes, consult “Our Fiscal Future.”
The key to winning any election is mass appeal. In simple terms: If a candidate can convince the majority of the electorate that he or she is the most favorable option, the path to the Capitol is paved in gold. Read more on HumanEvents.com...
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter, and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” - Al Gore, 2002
In July, the FBI released summaries of more than 20 interviews and casual conversations the agency carried out with former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Aside from creating a more robust picture of the conditions that led up to the Iraq War, the discussions flagrantly expose Hussein’s motives in resisting U.S. pressure to cooperate with U.N. inspectors. Furthermore, they provide an informative lens into his psyche during the months leading up to the invasion.
According to The Washington Times, “The new documents paint a picture of the Iraqi dictator in the final years of his life as arrogant, defiant and often delusional.” At points throughout the interviews, Hussein would often insist that he was still the president of Iraq. He denied ties to the al Qaeda and insisted that “…Iraq does not have orphans walking the streets.”
While the aforementioned elements are offsetting, the most startling revelation was Hussein’s own admission that he purposely misled the world to believe that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Even more alarming is the motivation he attributes to this self-proclaimed action. In the interviews, Hussein told officials that, in the months leading up to the Iraq War, he feared a nuclear-equipped Iran more than he did any reaction from the United States.
George Piro, Saddam’s FBI interviewer, wrote, “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.” Thus, the reason for Hussein’s intended deceit - a trickery that led to intense regional and global instability - was rooted more in political posturing and survival than it was in his narcissistic desire to exponentially increase Iraq’s power in the Middle East.
Importantly, this admission raises a number of red flags. Since 2003, American liberals have railed against the U.S. government, stating that former President George W. Bush purposefully misled the American people in his affirmations that Iraq possessed WMD. According to those on the left, Republicans used weapons-based rhetoric as an excuse to initiate military operations in the region. However, the release of these transcripts devalues this notion.
Teamed with the countless pieces of evidence contradicting Bush’s alleged purposeful deceit, Hussein’s own admission provides a basis for amplified understanding that sheds light on the bluffs and malfeasances that led the U.S. to invade. It is with this information that a more rational understanding of U.S. operations can be processed.
Considering Hussein’s weapons bluff, it is not surprising that the United States was led astray. When placing Iraq’s violently aggressive history and non-compliance into context, there was surely reason to believe that the nation was, indeed, illegally cultivating and harboring WMD. In fact, politicians were candid about their belief that Hussein did possess weapons in the decade preceding the Iraq War.
Prior to the commencement of military operations in 2003, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and others, from both sides of the political aisle, publicly stated Iraq’s threat to the international community. Following Iraq’s use of chemical weapons on the Iranians and the Kurds in the 1980s and Hussein’s vocal hatred for the West, this caution on behalf of American political minds was fully justified.
However, when the war broke out, liberal politicians were suddenly less vocal about these dangers and, collectively, their tone changed dramatically in the years following its inception. Nonetheless, their prior warnings about weapons are well documented and corroborate the fears and insinuations that reinforced U.S. rationale in striking Iraq. On an episode of Larry King in 2003, President Bill Clinton said, “When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for.”
In a 2002 speech to the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, Al Gore reiterated Hussein’s insatiable lust for weapons when he said, “Nevertheless, all Americans should acknowledge that Iraq does, indeed, pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf region, and we should be about the business of organizing an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction.”
Hussein’s possession of WMD was universally accepted by Democrats and Republicans alike, as those individuals with access to privileged information - whether they were former presidents or members of Congress - all reached the same conclusion: Saddam Hussein either possessed or sought to possess dangerous materials. This, teamed with Iraq’s refusal to cooperate with the international community when questioning about said materials began, inevitably led to U.S. military action.
The historical record now shows that it was Hussein, not George W. Bush, who manufactured and allowed the fester the idea that Iraq possessed powerful weapons of mass destruction.
“Okay, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don't like plus-sized models. They only like the women who look a certain way. And on the 50th anniversary of Barbie, I really have something to say.” - Laura Ingraham on Meghan McCain
Laura Ingraham – your insidious attack on Meghan McCain exemplifies, with surprising potency, all that is currently awry within the Republican party. As a young conservative who is active in the movement, I find it increasingly difficult to respect those of you who confront differing opinions with negative language, devoid of any substantive content.
Rather than focusing on your take on the elements that comprise the heart of conservatism when responding to Meghan, you resorted to disrespectful and unfounded distractions (i.e. making fun of her weight, calling her a valley girl and insinuating she has no place within the party). Where are the words of encouragement, theories and other prescriptions for future GOP successes? Where is the logical presentation of ideas -- or, at the least, a sensical list that explains why, going moderate, is not going to work for the GOP?
As we have endured losses in both the 2006 midterm elections and the 2008 presidential election, one would think that a united determination to mend the party would be undertaken – especially by those of you who have the power to encourage a mass conservative populace.
With your millions of listeners, your star-power should be used for the good of the party. Instead, your attack on Meghan shows that you're willing to use your notoriety to intimidate those who hold differing viewpoints. While you have surely done much for the movement, this particular instance makes it difficult for me (and I'm sure many others) to see you in the same light.
You called Meghan a “useful idiot,” but it is you and the others who share in these tactics who are the “useful idiots.” It was your choice to abandon logic in pursuit of ultra-liberesque, fourth-grade mockery -- not Meghan's.
Yes, the media are predominantly liberal. And yes, they target conservatives. But in this case, criticism of your words is well-founded. Surely we on the right have much to complain about when it comes to coverage, especially during political campaign cycles, but we cannot use the "media victim" card every time we make a mistake or say something off-color. Since you made your comments, you have continuously blamed the media. But, you're the one who's responsible. As conservatives, if we are going to hold ourselves to high standards of character and moral fabric, we're going to be judged -- especially by the media -- that much harder.
Your words were flat-out mean and unnecessary. Liberals are giggling like schoolgirls, thinking, “Hey! Look at those Republicans. They lost the last two elections, their party is in disarray and the incessant infighting will enable us to Barack our way to the top again in 2010 and 2012!”
Wake up, Laura. Our nation and our party are at a great crossroads. The result of the latter will have a lasting impact on the fate of the former. As a conservative, I know the value of utilizing logic, statistics and when necessary – qualitative analysis – to verbalize and corroborate my theories and sociological viewpoints. I thought you recognized this value as well.
Since when do conservatives need to resort to such lowly tactics to make a point? We used to be the party of ideas. We never heard Reagan call his leftist critics “plus-sized” while he single-handedly toppled the Soviet Union. We certainly never heard Lincoln call Democratic slaveholders “valley girls,” (or whatever equivalent existed way back when) as he fought feverishly to restore the union.
Furthermore, as members of the ultra left have worked incessantly to push ideological diversity out of our schools and media, your comments aim to do the same, as you used body image and baseless insults to insinuate that someone whom you disagree with has no place in our party.
Laura, you don't have the right, nor the privilege to decide who may or may not be considered a Republican. Our party will not progress until the ideologues who clog the system revert back to the sense and sound knowledge they once used to instill the conservative cause.
Additionally, how you can claim to care so deeply about image issues, while inadvertently making fun of a woman's weight is practically unfathomable. I agree with Meghan: “There's no place for weight criticism of women in 2009.”
All brands of Republican deserve a voice in the ongoing discussion about renewing the conservative cause. If we, as conservatives, are going to call out liberal attempts to squelch free speech, it's important we do the same when we see conservatives waging baseless attacks on peers with whom they have ideological differences. If we want to fix the party, members must be held to higher standards of transparency and accountability.
If you want to intelligently refute Meghan's comments, go for it. After all, I don't agree with all of the points she's been making. That said, 2006 and 2008 showed us that we need a renewal. If we don't let everyone weigh in, we're going to lose out on a vast marketplace of ideas. Sure, we may not like every ideal we hear, but to act as though each perspective we disagree with lacks merit is to truly damage our party's growth and revitilization.
Talk about failing to learn life lessons. After battling for governmental control, Obama is making lofty decisions that stand firmly against the will of the American people. 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. From climate change to corruption -- to funding for overseas abortions -- Obama and the Democrats are paving the way for future electoral defeat.
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. In no particular order there was Tom Daschle ("was" 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. Obama had this to say in response to the outcry surrounding the potential cabinetee (as per FOX News):
"Tom made a mistake, which he has openly acknowledged. He has not excused it, nor do I," Obama said. He added that the "mistake" should not diminish the "many contributions" Daschle has made to the country.
Then comes Nancy Killefer, who also withdrew her name for consideration for the position of "chief performance officer." Killefer would have been the first to take this position, but tax problems also hampered her ability to accept it. And then there is Bill Richardson, who -- according to FOX News -- withdrew his name over an alleged kickback investigation:
The confusing part of the nomination conundrum centers upon Obama's promise to root out corruption. So far the only rooting that'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).
Aside from these shining examples of hypocrisy stands America's new Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who belatedly paid $34,000 in income taxes. 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. And I thought Gregory B. Craig's (Obama's White House counsel) defense of a presidential assassin was an embarrassment to the Obama Administration. Talk about one-upping one's self.
Clearly, the American people should have some concerns. One could argue that the aforementioned examples simply result from human error. But, upon examination there is a pattern building here that is disturbing at best. Even when one looks beyond the drama surrounding nominees and confirmations, the Democrats are making decisions that rail against the will of the people.
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's nowhere near the proportion of Democrats). 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'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't immediately solve.
Just look at Obama's major decisions thus far. According to polls released this week, the majority of Americans stand against Obama's first two executive orders. As for the first of these orders -- the president's decision to provide funding to family planning organizations overseas that provide abortions -- 58% of Americans disagree with Obama; only 35% support the decision.
Understanding ultraliberals is a daunting task. 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. At the least, you'd think they'd at least spout off about the need to support the domestic abortions they support so fervantly before shipping funding off to other countries. Apparently funding clinics that provide abortions in Zimbabwe is more important than funding our crumbling educational system.
Obama needs to get with the program. Instead of holding press conferences to tell us how he'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. We need him to succeed, but with uncollected decision-making at the helm, success isn't on the horizon.