The following article is from the Owen Sound Sun Times...
_____________________________________________
Dion distorts Afghan reality
When people talk about Stephane Dion's difficulties they tend to talk about his personal style. But what if there's something more fundamental at work?
What if Dion's failure to catch on, especially in Ontario, relates directly to the mush, nonsense and outright falsehoods that he continues to perpetuate about the Afghan mission?
Consider the latest Liberal position paper on Afghanistan, unveiled in December. Since then Dion and his deputy, Michael Ignatieff, have dropped into Kandahar for a fact-finding mission. But neither man allowed the facts on the ground to interfere with their preferred story line.
As far as these two are concerned, this remains a "war-fighting" or "combat" mission. Their job, as they see it, is to help our misguided military reshape this into an entirely more peaceful operation, in which soldiers do not "proactively" seek out and engage enemy fighters.
This habit of "proactive" action, the Liberal brain trust says, is what makes the Afghan mission distastefully combative, as opposed to peaceful and supportive and righteous.
Let's pursue this notion for a moment.
Most of our casualties in Kandahar have been suffered in IED attacks. A convoy of LAV-III armoured troop carriers rolls down a dirt road, en route to or from a forward operating base or to the Provincial Reconstruction Team base in Kandahar City. It might be a resupply mission; it might be a convoy to an orphanage or a school; it might be a transport of aid workers, journalists, politicians or other civilians; or it might be simply to show a security presence on the roads.
There are only so many roads in Kandahar Province. The insurgents watch these routes and they know the ones our troops use. During the night, they booby-trap them with improvised explosive devices. These are sometimes made of reclaimed Soviet artillery shells, wired together. Or they use more conventional modern explosives, shipped in from Pakistan. The IEDs pack enormous explosive punch. They're rigged with wireless detonators and can be set off using a cellphone signal.
Here's the point: The bulk of our military casualties in Kandahar are not taken in so-called 'combat' operations. There are combat operations under way, to be sure: These are undertaken by a battle-group contingent, usually about 700 strong, within the larger Canadian force. These soldiers go "outside the wire" on missions to find, kill or disrupt insurgents. But they do this primarily for one reason - to prevent them from importing, building and setting off lethal IEDs on Kandahar roadways - because the roadways are the primary means of establishing security and advancing the reconstruction.
In other words, the 'combat' operations so distasteful to Dion and Ignatieff are defensive, from a tactical point of view. They are intended to disrupt insurgents before they kill our soldiers and aid workers, and their Afghan National Police and Afghan National Army allies. The overwhelming focus of all Canada's military efforts in Afghanistan is peace and security support. This has been the case for many months now. It's not a secret.
Prevent our troops from "proactively" seeking out and destroying insurgents? That's another way of saying, stop defending the troops, aid workers and diplomats engaged in training and reconstruction. Stop using your intelligence network to find out where the insurgents are, and stop trying to put them out of business. Instead, roll down the road in your convoy and let them blow you up. Sound insane? It is. But it follows logically from the current Liberal position on Afghanistan. It is worse than irresponsible, it is willfully ignorant. No military in the world would implement such a policy, because to do so would be suicidal. In Kandahar, without force protection, the only option is to stop rebuilding and leave.
Or - and perhaps this is the true Liberal view - we should look to the Americans to provide the muscle? Here's the trouble with that approach: Canadian soldiers are actually better at this than Americans. The American military too often uses blunt force, including air strikes, to impose security. Air strikes, the Liberals acknowledge, are a dangerously scattershot weapon in a counter-insurgency campaign. Most often they simply turn the local people against you.
Canadian soldiers are doing an extraordinary job in Afghanistan under extremely dangerous conditions. The political class in this country owes them a degree of unanimity. If Dion wants to be considered a leader in waiting, he should speak like a leader.
That means, very simply, telling the truth.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Econ-Omy
If you live in North America, you have a great need to have your eyes opened wide and your brain informed about what is really going on in the economy.
And THIS is the interview you need to read. Go straight to the source.
Read on, Glenn Beck's interview with the chief accountant in the land...
________________________________________
David Walker interview about the economy
January 18, 2008 - 12:17 ET
From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, the third most listened to show in all of America. Hello, you sick freak. My name is Glenn Beck. Dow is down 300 points. Still people are in denial that our economy is in real, real trouble and the reason why I say normally, I would tell you that, you know, we go through these cycles and it happens. I cannot tell you that now and I have been telling you this for at least a year. I've been really ringing the warning bell since August on what was coming with our banking systems and everything else because of the underlying problem that we have in our government's recordkeeping, the way our government is spending. An avalanche is right around the corner and there is no escape and no one is willing to talk about it. None of our politicians will address it and so no matter what kind of Band-Aid you put on this economy, you must address certain issues, and the biggest issue is not the peanut museums but Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid. What is coming around the corner. Today all of our politicians are talking about spending packages, giving out more money to help this economy. It will be short lived and in the end do much, much more damage because the underlying problem is we have spent too much money as it is.
Now, I tried to get this guy on the radio for you to listen to for quite some time. David Walker is the comptroller general of the United States of America. Basically he is our chief accountant. This is not a political position. He was appointed originally by Reagan, reappointed by Clinton but always unanimous in the Senate. He never spoke out. He has finally said an avalanche is coming and no one's willing to talk about it and so he will tell you what really is coming. I beg you to listen to this man because he's the only one telling you the truth about what's happening in Washington because he's the guy who keeps the books. It is an honor, sir. David Walker, welcome to the program.
WALKER: Good to be with you, Glenn. Like your theme song.
GLENN: Thank you very much. David, do you get a lot of heat from political people for speaking out this way?
WALKER: Glenn, as long as I state the facts, speak the truth, don't blame any particular political party and don't blame any particular person, then I'm fine. And in fact, I'm doing elected officials a favor because the American people need to understand where we are, where we're headed, the need for tough choices and realistically elected officials aren't going to make those tough choices until the people understand the need for them.
GLENN: I don't care about the blame. I don't want to point fingers. I just, I understand the problem. Start at the beginning. Tell us how this system works. Tell us how if our Government was a business, they would all be in jail today.
WALKER: Yeah, if we were a business, we would be out of business. But the Government has the ability to do things that the companies don't. The Government has the ability to print money. The Government has the ability to tax. The Government has had the ability to borrow because at the present point in time the federal government is viewed as having the safest credit rating that you can get. However within the last two years both S&P and Moody's have said that we're headed for a junk bond rating within the next 15 to 20 years if we don't --
GLENN: What does that mean to us?
WALKER: Well, what that's going to mean is much higher interest rates that the Government will have to pay in order to borrow money which will have adverse effects on the budget, which will have adverse effects with regard to the overall economy.
GLENN: David, please, please help me out on this. I'm a former deejay. I'm a self-educated guy. I'm a recovering alcoholic, for the love of Pete, and I can understand our economy. But every -- because I look at it like my house. But every economist, every expert, every politician will say, oh, no, well, that's too simple. It doesn't seem -- you are talking about, here come crushing interest rates because we have bad credit. That's what the average homeowner who has bad credit and went out and got a risky loan is facing today.
WALKER: Right.
GLENN: Where is the difference? Why is it more complex than our personal economy?
WALKER: Frankly I think a lot of the economists want to make it more complicated than it really is. I mean, the fact of the matter is that the federal government is spending more money than it takes in. It's charging the national credit card. It's building debt in compounded interest and it's expecting future generations to pay it off. And, you know, our problem is not the current deficits. The deficits we're running now are manageable. Our current debt levels that we have now are manageable. The problem is that even though the deficits have come down for three years in a row, our unfunded promises for Social Security and Medicare have risen dramatically. In our total fiscal hole it is $53 trillion. That's $440,000 per household. So the problem's not where we are, it's not where we've been. It's where we're headed unless we end up making dramatic and fundamental reforms.
GLENN: And see, this is the problem. All the politicians make the deficit, the current deficit the issue and they say these deficit spendings, they're out of control. And I believe they are. And they've got to cut spending in Washington. But the biggest problem that we've had in the last eight years is adding another program like prescription drugs, correct?
WALKER: That was the most fiscally irresponsible act in decades. And when the congress debated that, they only considered the ten-year cost of the program, not the longer term cost. And now we know the price tag for Medicare prescription drugs is over $8 trillion. There's twelve zeros in line with that eight.
GLENN: Give some example. These numbers honestly, David, I think that trillion, I believe growing up, I believe when I was in second grade I think I made up the word trillion and zillion. I didn't think they were real words. So give some concept of what $8 trillion means.
WALKER: Well, I'll give you the $53 trillion that I talked about which is the total unfunded obligations for Medicare, which is $34 trillion. The total unfunded obligation for Social Security which is about 7 plus our debt and other liabilities. $53 trillion is $440,000 per American household. Median household income in America, believe it or not, Glenn, is less than $50,000 a year. So it's like if we just want to continue on our present path, it's like every American household having a mortgage of nine and a half times their annual income for the median household but no house to back that mortgage. That's in addition to all the other debt that they have.
GLENN: It's my understanding when people say tax the rich, they need to pay more, it is my understanding that you could take all of the income, income, not income tax, all of the income generated in this country and still not afford what we have coming.
WALKER: Well, to put it a different way, the $53 trillion is 90% of the estimated total net worth of every American, including Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and every billionaire. You are not going to tax your way out of this problem. You're not going to grow your way out of this problem. You are not going to do it by con training spending. You are going to have to do a combination of things and the biggest thing is going to be entitlement reform, Social Security and Medicare, healthcare being a much greater challenge. And we need to start soon because time's working against us. That $53 trillion number is going up $2 to $3 trillion a year by doing nothing.
GLENN: Tell me about the -- and listeners, because I don't want to make this political. It tell you, though, behind-the-scenes story on the Menu of Pain on a later episode of the program. But let's just keep it nonpolitical here. Tell me about the Menu of Pain that actually was supposed to be in a federal budget but was buried in a group of actuary tables in the back of the Social Security budget, if I'm not mistaken, but this is telling. It tells you the real story of what you've got to do.
WALKER: Well, we're going to have to do several things. Number one, we're going to have to bring back tough budget controls, tougher than the ones we had in the 1990s. Those ones worked. They took us from deficits to surpluses but they all expired in 2002 and there's been no constraint since then. And so we've got to bring back tough controls. But in addition to that we're going to have to reform Social Security, which frankly is easy and we can talk about that if you want. We're going to have to engage in dramatic healthcare reform in installments and we're going to have to --
GLENN: Wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait, dramatic healthcare installments, what's that mean? Can we afford anybody's plan of universal healthcare?
WALKER: Well, the current plans that we have right now, the numbers don't add up and here's what we have to recognize. We have already promised in Medicare alone $34 trillion more than in revenues that we have to deliver on those promises. $34 trillion in today's terms, okay? So when people talk about, gee, I want to do this on healthcare, I'm going to pay for it by not extending the Bush tax cuts or whatever, what about the $34 trillion hole? You can't just be in a situation to talk about I'm going to pay for my additional promises. We need to address the $34 trillion hole. And that was the problem with Medicare prescription drugs. We were in the hole about $20 trillion and it went up another $8 rather than going the direction it needs to go.
GLENN: On the Menu of Pain it was several different things. You can reform Social Security, you can raise taxes and every year that slips by because of the mounting interest, those, that menu becomes more and more painful.
WALKER: That's correct.
GLENN: Can you give us some of the realistic -- because everybody's talking about raising taxes now. Can you just give us the line of how high you need to raise taxes to be able to deal with it two years ago today and maybe two years in the future?
WALKER: Well, let's talk about today, okay? I mean, you know, you would end up having to increase taxes about $11,000 per household immediately in order to deal with this problem. Stated differently, you would end up having to -- we would end up having to tax, rather than at about 18 1/2% of the economy, which is what we're doing now, about 30% of the economy over the next 15 to 20 years and continuing to rise. And those taxes would be borne primarily in all likelihood either based upon income taxes or some type of consumption tax because payroll taxes are already burdening too many Americans.
GLENN: David, what happens if we don't address this problem in the next four years? What does it look like in four years from now, you know, ten years or 20 years from now?
WALKER: Here's my concern. I believe we have a narrowing window of opportunity to get our fiscal house in order. I believe we have five to ten years maximum in order to be able to demonstrate to the capital markets and to our foreign lenders that we will take this seriously. If we're not able to do that, then I think it's only a matter of time before those who have been borrowing our debt -- buying our debt, which is increasingly foreign players, 75%-plus of our debt bought by foreign players, will lose their appetite for our debt and that's when interest rates go up. And when interest rates go up, then believe me, we can have something a lot worse than a recession.
So my concern is that the next President, whoever that might be, has got to make fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity one of their top priorities. They need to start talking about it in the general election campaign so that they have some basis to do something about it because the window of opportunity is closing.
GLENN: David, I will not ask you a question that will put you in an awkward situation. So answer this as generally as you can and we'll do our own homework. Have you heard any politician out there that has a shot actually talking about the issue in a way that you feel is fiscally responsible?
WALKER: First, I did not expect and I haven't been disappointed in the fact that fiscal responsibility and intergenerational equity has not been a major issue in the primary campaigns. I didn't expect that it would be because in the primary campaigns both parties are playing to their base and they are more concerned with issues like Iraq and immigration and now the changing nature of the economy and general healthcare coverage and things of that nature. I've expected and I hope that I will be right that it will be an issue for the general election campaign.
Now, without mentioning any specific names, there's at least a couple of people on the Republican side and at least one person on the Democratic side who have used some words that lead you to believe that they understand that we have a problem here, but nobody has dealt with specifics at this point and I don't expect that they will for some time. Candidly I think they need to commit to several things, Glenn. Number one: They understand that we have a big problem and they are committed to make it a priority to do something about it. Number two: They will work on a bipartisan basis to address this problem if they become President. Number three: They will not take anything off the table. They won't take changes to Social Security or Medicare or the tax system or spending policy off the table because the gap's so big, we need to have everything on the table. And ideally, number 4: That they would endorse a capable, credible bipartisan commission that would make recommendations to the next President and the next congress for an up or down vote, a forced vote to try to help us get a down payment on this big problem so we can start making progress.
GLENN: David, I only have one minute and there are a ton of nay sayers, a ton of people who say, oh, we've always faced these problems, et cetera, et cetera. Give me one fact that would peel the skin off of people's faces to wake them up.
WALKER: In 1950 we had 16 people paying into Social Security for every person retired. Now we have 3.3 to 1. We're going to have 2 to 1 by 2030. Same ratios for Medicare. We've never faced this before. This is a tsunami of spending that can swamp our ship of state if we don't get serious.
GLENN: David Walker, I can't tell you, sir. You are going to go down in the history books as a patriot. I appreciate you speaking out and don't stop. And anything we can do, you please let us know, sir.
WALKER: Thanks for your interest and efforts, Glenn.
GLENN: Thank you, sir.
WALKER: Take care.
GLENN: David Walker, the comptroller general of the United States of America. He is our chief bean counter and the first, first guy to ever come out and really talk about it. We're out of time. I wish we weren't because he'll talk to you about the three sets of books that we hold, how I think we should put these people in jail. But that's a different story.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
oh
Oh, hey there.
And how are you?
Seems to me, I spend a lot of time blogging, talking about myself, and not very much time at all seeing how my readers are doing.
So, I would just like to say that I , sincerely, hope that all my loyal readers are doing well, that you are well of health and well of spirit, that your mind is sound and your emotions are stable. You are all looking good, and I am glad that you came by! Good to see you again!
Um, now back to me. Hope you don't mind too much...
Just wanted to let you know that the 22nd of January is the day that a new job-posting at work closes, one that I am applying for next day that I am at work (which is this Friday). So, I hope to hear within a week or so whether or not I am the new Part-Time Afternoon(Evening)-Shift Supervisor at my work.
Just so you know...
Anybody else looking forward to promotions or anything exciting like that? Hey, you are welcome to drop me an email sometime, you know?
Gets kinda lonely around here in cyberspace by myself...
And how are you?
Seems to me, I spend a lot of time blogging, talking about myself, and not very much time at all seeing how my readers are doing.
So, I would just like to say that I , sincerely, hope that all my loyal readers are doing well, that you are well of health and well of spirit, that your mind is sound and your emotions are stable. You are all looking good, and I am glad that you came by! Good to see you again!
Um, now back to me. Hope you don't mind too much...
Just wanted to let you know that the 22nd of January is the day that a new job-posting at work closes, one that I am applying for next day that I am at work (which is this Friday). So, I hope to hear within a week or so whether or not I am the new Part-Time Afternoon(Evening)-Shift Supervisor at my work.
Just so you know...
Anybody else looking forward to promotions or anything exciting like that? Hey, you are welcome to drop me an email sometime, you know?
Gets kinda lonely around here in cyberspace by myself...
My Votes
In another importnat blog on American politics, I think that these two interviews with Republican Candidates are so very important that I am putting them both in the same blog.
In a perfect world, I would like to see Mitt Romney as President, with Rudy Guliani as his Vice-President. And, if that did not work, then I would gladly take Duncan Hunter as President Romney's 2nd-in-command.
[ When you have finished, do not forget to come back here and click this link, http://leprechaunlaundry.blogspot.com/2008/01/newt.html , to read Glenn Beck's interview with Newt Gingrich! ]
Without further ado, I give you Glenn Beck's interviews with Mitt Romney, and Rudy Guliani.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitt Romney interview
January 16, 2008 - 11:13 ET
GLENN: Well, he now leads in delegates. More people have voted in Michigan last night than all of the other primaries combined. He's either number one or number two in every race and it is Mitt Romney. Hello, Mitt Romney, how are you, sir?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: I'm doing terrific, Glenn, thank you.
GLENN: I bet you are. Congratulations. Feeling good today?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Yeah, feels really good. I tell you, as you say I've been able to do either first or second in each of the contests and, of course, with Wyoming a first and Michigan a first, that gives me a good start.
GLENN: How are you shaping up? The next one is Nevada? Is that Saturday?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Yeah, Nevada and South Carolina. The media attention has always been on South Carolina although interestingly South Carolina has 24 delegates at stake and Nevada has 34. So we'll be playing in both markets and I think I've got a better shot at coming in first in Nevada. In South Carolina John McCain is way ahead. Of course, he battled some years ago and has put a lot of money and time into it here but, you know, you never know.
GLENN: Right. I will tell you, Mitt, that something that we have talked about before, the economy. I have been very concerned about the fundamentals in our economy for quite some time and you have been my economy guy the whole time. If somebody's got to deal with the economy, because of your experience of, you know, building companies and great turnarounds, you are the guy. In a way, I mean, it's going to be real bittersweet for you because you know what's coming with the economy but you also know you're the guy to fix it. So it's good for you.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that the economy is the issue people face, short-term or long term. You really do want to have somebody who knows something about how jobs come and go, how we stay competitive with other countries, where our dollars lie and how you rein in Washington waste and push Washington to do those things which actually builds our economy stronger. So, you know, it is what I do, as they say, and that would suggest that I'll get a boost and I think I got a bit of a boost in Michigan because I was willing to talk about the economy and say, look, we don't have to be pessimistic and look at our shoes here. We can see a return of American strength and there's no reason to think America can't lead the world.
GLENN: There's a couple of articles that are out today. One is in U.S. News and World Report and the other I think is in the Boston Globe. They say Michigan signaled the end of the Reaganomics because everybody, including you, was talking about bigger government. That's what the article was saying. Do you find that accurate?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: No, of course not. I love how the liberal media is dying to put at rest any conservative thought. The answer is stop the growth of government and instead to return to the individual the ability to make their own decisions. So, for instance, my healthcare plan does not give people government insurance. It lets them buy their own private market insurance. And that's by far the better way to go. Government insurance is way too expensive. It's run by bureaucrats. You don't want the people who ran the Katrina cleanup running their healthcare system. So it's just, you know, as obvious as the nose on your face but somehow Democrats just don't see that.
GLENN: We had David Walker from the GAO. I don't know if you know him, but he's the U.S. comptroller general. I had him on television last week. The guy never did interviews because he's not a left or right guy. He's just right or wrong. And he's not a political guy. First interview he did was 60 Minutes. I believe we did the second interview and we're doing an hour with him on Friday on radio. This guy is out now ringing the bell and he's been a quiet guy for a long time and he says our debt is not sustainable. How do you get the American people to understand that, you know, giving people money to help with their heating oil is not going to fix this economy. It is the massive overspending in Washington. And not just the earmarks but Social Security, Medicaid more specifically, and prescription drugs. It's got to be fixed. How do you get that message across?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I think the best way I've been able to get it across, and it is in my view why I've been able to do as well as I have in the season so far is that I say quite bluntly and with a major sign that's standing up behind me says Washington is broken. We simply cannot keep on going the way we have gone. We have to deal with the challenges we have. The good news is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security can be fixed so that they don't have to weigh down our entire economy. The annual spending is --
GLENN: How? How do you fix it?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, yeah. Well, Social Security's the easiest and that's because you can give people a personal account, you can extend the retirement age and you can calculate the initial benefit based on inflation for higher income people rather than the wage index which goes up so much higher. Those simple arithmetic changes will keep Social Security from bankrupt.
GLENN: Hold it just a second. I can -- hold on. I think I just heard a politician say "Extend the retirement age"?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Those are the three major levers you have, changing the retirement age, giving people more of their income going in or their Social Security withdrawal going into private accounts, and having a lower rate of inflation on the calculation of initial benefits for higher income individuals. Those are the arithmetic ways to make this work. Other than having a tax increase. And the problem with a tax increase is you slow down the economy, which is the last thing you need in this nation.
GLENN: Do you ever get to the point, do you and your wife ever lay in bed and just say, what did we get ourselves into? I mean, I don't think we've ever seen a primary like this before. I mean, if there's anybody that seems to be taking it from all sides, it's your candidacy. Do you ever just say to your wife, what are we doing?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, we say that all the time, but what we know we're doing is running in this race because I don't believe that the Republican party is going to nominate a good man, Senator McCain, who is somebody who voted against the Bush tax cuts, who authored a bill to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here forever, if you will a form of amnesty. I fellow who authored McCain/Feingold which devastated our First Amendment and has made money an even bigger political player in political events. I just don't think that's the right course to take and for many reasons I think Mike Huckabee wouldn't be our nominee. So I look at it and say if they are not going to be able to it, somebody's got to. We're going on as long as the American people say that the accommodation of, if you will, Reagan's coalition of social economic and foreign policy conservatives are what are needed to lead this country.
GLENN: Okay. So tell me then, because this is something I've been asking on the air and my listeners can't give me an explanation on John McCain. Explain why -- I mean, every conservative knows who this guy is, and I admire that he never changes -- you know, he knows what he believes and he just, you know, he bucks the system and says I'm going forward and that's what it is, but he's wrong almost every single time. How is it that he's got this momentum?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You'd rather change than be wrong, but it is a combination. I read an article just a couple of days ago that said actually he was opposed to Second Amendment rights and then he has changed and now is in favor of Second Amendment rights and he, of course, voted against the Bush tax cuts but now he says that he wants to make them permanent. So, you know, he has had his fair share of points on which he has evolved as he's described it.
GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait. That's not evolution. I mean, if there's a clear case to be made some case for flip-flop, it's John McCain. He was just trying to hand free amnesty out to everybody and was like, wow, you know, that was a bad idea; we shouldn't do that. That, at least with your abortion thing, you had an explanation. I don't understand how McCain's not being labeled a flip-flopper.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You know, I think it's just too hard for people to imagine because of the brand he's been able to establish over the years and I don't have any problem with a person changing their mind to do something which I think is right. I have to take a position which I think is right. And if somebody can go through life for decades and never find that their experience causes them to change their mind, then they probably shouldn't be in public office. I'm not going to be critical of somebody changing their views from time to time.
GLENN: But hang on.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: But I can tell you when their views are wrong, I'll point it out.
GLENN: The first time we spoke, I don't know if you remember this, I said to you -- I was very, very skeptical and I said before you came on the air, I'll going to ask this guy for his pivot point and if he can't tell me the moment that it crystallized in his head on abortion, if he can't tell me the wallpaper color of when he realized, "Wait a minute, I'm on the wrong side of this issue," he's lying to you. And you told the story about when you changed and you didn't hesitate at all and I knew it was a valid pivot point. I'm a pivot point guy because I'm a alcoholic. I knew -- I can tell you the moment I said I've got to change my life. That's not the case with John McCain. That's a flip-flop. When it comes to taxes, you don't support them back then and now, "well, I'll make them permanent but I'm not really sure if I would do more tax cuts now." That's a flip-flop. He doesn't even understand what tax cuts do.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I do think you have to have an appreciation for the fact that if you reduce taxes, and particularly if you reduce them in the right way. You actually can grow the economy and make it possible for the Government to get more revenue and take less revenue away from the American people. And that's, you know, that's a very fundamental perspective and I know there were a lot of people, myself included, who didn't think that made a lot of sense a long time ago but you know what? The more I've aged, the more I recognize how brilliant Ronald Reagan was.
GLENN: Let's just, let's play a game here and let's just say that you are the guy facing off the other side. Who would you rather face?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You know, I don't know who that would be. I have to be honest with you. All three of the leading contenders are so extraordinarily liberal that I find it very, very hard to pick among them. I think it's going to be -- I do think it's going to be a Republican victory if I'm the nominee. I think if I go up against Hillary Clinton, I'll be able to say, Senator Clinton, you worked very hard to create a healthcare plan but there's a big difference between your plan and my plan. My plan got passed and yours didn't. And number two, mine didn't cost more money. It was paid for with money we were already spending. Yours cost, your new one cost $110 billion more. You impose one plan on the entire nation; I let each state craft their plan within guidelines that we helped put together. And number four, you give people government insurance; I don't do that. I let them get free market insurance.
GLENN: Mitt Romney, thank you so much. We'll talk to you again, my friend.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Have a great day.
__________________________________________
Rudy Giuliani interview
January 16, 2008 - 11:14 ET
GLENN: Now we go to Rudy Giuliani who is with us. Hello, Rudy.
GIULIANI: How are you?
GLENN: Very good. Where are you?
GIULIANI: I am in Jacksonville, Florida.
GLENN: Okay. You were talking, right now -- I mean, we're huge in Florida. We're talking to almost every city in Florida is listening to you right now and you have put everything into the Florida strategy. Karl Rove said to me just a few minutes ago, very risky strategy, never been done before. Do you ever kind of wake up in the middle of the night and go, jeez, maybe this was a mistake? Or are you feeling good about it?
GIULIANI: We feel good about it. I mean, this is the strategy that works for us. If you look back on it, it probably is the one that emphasizes our strengths and weaknesses the best, meaning the place where we would have the best chance. And we are campaigning very, very hard here, getting great reception. Tremendous enthusiasm. When you see how the rest of the field is kind of spread out with many different winners here and there, you get the feeling that -- you get the feeling that this strategy might very well be a good one. Even outsiders are getting the feeling. We feel this.
GLENN: I will tell you that when I first heard the strategy, I thought, I don't think that sounds like a good idea. But now that the field is so split up, you know, if they're -- I'm going to be real honest with you. The two people that I would vote for, you and Mitt Romney. And if it is Huckabee or McCain and I wasn't necessarily on your bandwagon, I would look at those two guys and go, I can't do that. So yes, Rudy Giuliani. I think there's a lot of sentiment like that and they're not sure. If it becomes a frontrunner of one of these guys that you absolutely would be in the position of, well, you know what, I know Rudy Giuliani, I know what he's about and I know that he really believes in tax cuts and everything else, I'll go for Rudy Giuliani. You may all of a sudden sweep.
GIULIANI: Well, I think the fact is the tax proposal we made has helped us a lot. It's got a great deal of attention here in Florida. It's the largest tax cut in American history, or would be the largest tax cut in American history. But that isn't even the main point of it. The main point of it is it would also provide a single one-page form that people could file.
GLENN: Hang on just a second.
GIULIANI: For paying their taxes.
GLENN: Hold on just a second. America I just have to -- this is adult material. This is practically pornography that you are talking right now. This is erotic talk come from you, Rudy Giuliani. It really is.
GIULIANI: And it works. When you look at the form, I think people will see that it works. It does preserve the key deductions critical to our economy really like home mortgage. You can't take away the home mortgage deduction right now. And it preserves the child care exemption, state and local taxes and the new exclusion that we're going to create for healthcare to encourage people to buy their own healthcare insurance.
GLENN: This is the only problem that I have with this plan because I love it. Don't get me wrong. I love it. But I wondered why you just didn't go for a flat, why you went for the three separate categories and then you added some stuff because that's where we always get in trouble. Because special interests will always say, well, wait a minute, add mine, too. Why didn't you just go flat?
GIULIANI: Well, we drew a line at, I think it's four, five, and that can all fit on one page. The idea is to have it fit on one page. And we picked the ones that aren't just special interests. In other words, we picked the ones that are core to our economy. For example, Glenn, right now if you took away the home mortgage deduction with what is going on in the housing market, you just couldn't responsibly do it. I mean, it would be a very, very devastating blow to an area of our economy that already has a lot to deal with. The charitable deduction I think would also be a big blow to all of these philanthropic organizations that do a lot of the work that otherwise would fall to government. And state and local taxes, it would totally recreate the whole tax scheme. You know, as I said, if we were starting income tax at the very beginning, I would be in favor of one, just a number, that's it, no deductions. But we have an economy now that's built around this. And second, the practical point, Glenn. This can get done. In other words, the political opposition to it would not overwhelm the support that you have for it. If you tried to take on all those things, I think as a practical matter you just wouldn't get it done.
GLENN: Let me ask you this. We've talked about this before and I think I'm a lot further down the road than you are, but I think you're at least on the same path that I am. If you look at CitiBank writing down $18 billion, and I don't think that's the end of it, unemployment coming up, inflation now coming up, I feel that we are about to hit very hard economic times and if you throw on global warming treaties, universal healthcare, higher taxes, socialist policies, I don't see a way, as Medicare, Medicaid and everything else starts to hit us, I don't see a way that we economically survive with the kinds of policies that the Democrats are going to put into place if they win next year. Right or wrong?
GIULIANI: Well, I agree with that. I think it would be devastating to our economy, it would really harm it, it would put a -- I describe it as putting a lid on our economy. You know, putting a halter on it so that it wouldn't be able to grow.
GLENN: I was -- I just had a five-day hospital stay and it was one of the worst experiences of my life and all these liberal blogs came out and said, oh, I wish he would have died in the hospital; now he's going to come out with some epiphany and said we should have universal healthcare and I came out and said the exact opposite. We need people who care, who remember that care is part of healthcare. I felt like I was being pushed out.
GIULIANI: Absolutely right. You need a personal relationship with your doctor. You need a personal relationship with a healthcare provider that you have so that you can make decisions with them.
GLENN: Right. And when somebody asked me last night, they said, who is the guy -- I think it was on CNN. They said who is the guy that you would want for healthcare, I said Rudy Giuliani. Could you please explain your healthcare proposal?
GIULIANI: Sure. My healthcare proposal is a tax exclusion of $15,000 if you buy your own health insurance, if you buy it personally. If you can buy it for $12,000, you get a $3,000 health savings account which you can put aside. It's yours. Nobody can touch it and you can use it for regular and ordinary healthcare expenses. What this will do, I believe, is move millions of people to the private healthcare market. That will have the impact of driving down the cost of private healthcare. If 15 million people are buying private health insurance instead of 17 million people, it's going to cost half the price.
GLENN: What Democrat would you rather face?
GIULIANI: Oh, I don't care, Glenn. Not only don't I care, I don't have anything to say about it. So you sort of have to be open to --
GLENN: There's not one that you go -- wait a minute. Hang on. There's just --
GIULIANI: Either Obama or Clinton, right?
GLENN: Well, no, you could face socialist John [ Edwards ] . I think he should wear a star on a furry cap. I've never seen anything like it.
GIULIANI: Well, John Edwards doesn't have a chance at this point but the other two, it could be either one of them.
GLENN: Yeah.What about, I mean, Dennis Kucinich, --
GIULIANI: It's still more likely Hillary, I think.
GLENN: -- is still in there fighting. All right, Rudy Giuliani, thank you very much.
GIULIANI: Thank you.
GLENN: Best of luck to you, sir. We'll talk to you again.
In a perfect world, I would like to see Mitt Romney as President, with Rudy Guliani as his Vice-President. And, if that did not work, then I would gladly take Duncan Hunter as President Romney's 2nd-in-command.
[ When you have finished, do not forget to come back here and click this link, http://leprechaunlaundry.blogspot.com/2008/01/newt.html , to read Glenn Beck's interview with Newt Gingrich! ]
Without further ado, I give you Glenn Beck's interviews with Mitt Romney, and Rudy Guliani.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitt Romney interview
January 16, 2008 - 11:13 ET
GLENN: Well, he now leads in delegates. More people have voted in Michigan last night than all of the other primaries combined. He's either number one or number two in every race and it is Mitt Romney. Hello, Mitt Romney, how are you, sir?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: I'm doing terrific, Glenn, thank you.
GLENN: I bet you are. Congratulations. Feeling good today?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Yeah, feels really good. I tell you, as you say I've been able to do either first or second in each of the contests and, of course, with Wyoming a first and Michigan a first, that gives me a good start.
GLENN: How are you shaping up? The next one is Nevada? Is that Saturday?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Yeah, Nevada and South Carolina. The media attention has always been on South Carolina although interestingly South Carolina has 24 delegates at stake and Nevada has 34. So we'll be playing in both markets and I think I've got a better shot at coming in first in Nevada. In South Carolina John McCain is way ahead. Of course, he battled some years ago and has put a lot of money and time into it here but, you know, you never know.
GLENN: Right. I will tell you, Mitt, that something that we have talked about before, the economy. I have been very concerned about the fundamentals in our economy for quite some time and you have been my economy guy the whole time. If somebody's got to deal with the economy, because of your experience of, you know, building companies and great turnarounds, you are the guy. In a way, I mean, it's going to be real bittersweet for you because you know what's coming with the economy but you also know you're the guy to fix it. So it's good for you.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, there's no question but that the economy is the issue people face, short-term or long term. You really do want to have somebody who knows something about how jobs come and go, how we stay competitive with other countries, where our dollars lie and how you rein in Washington waste and push Washington to do those things which actually builds our economy stronger. So, you know, it is what I do, as they say, and that would suggest that I'll get a boost and I think I got a bit of a boost in Michigan because I was willing to talk about the economy and say, look, we don't have to be pessimistic and look at our shoes here. We can see a return of American strength and there's no reason to think America can't lead the world.
GLENN: There's a couple of articles that are out today. One is in U.S. News and World Report and the other I think is in the Boston Globe. They say Michigan signaled the end of the Reaganomics because everybody, including you, was talking about bigger government. That's what the article was saying. Do you find that accurate?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: No, of course not. I love how the liberal media is dying to put at rest any conservative thought. The answer is stop the growth of government and instead to return to the individual the ability to make their own decisions. So, for instance, my healthcare plan does not give people government insurance. It lets them buy their own private market insurance. And that's by far the better way to go. Government insurance is way too expensive. It's run by bureaucrats. You don't want the people who ran the Katrina cleanup running their healthcare system. So it's just, you know, as obvious as the nose on your face but somehow Democrats just don't see that.
GLENN: We had David Walker from the GAO. I don't know if you know him, but he's the U.S. comptroller general. I had him on television last week. The guy never did interviews because he's not a left or right guy. He's just right or wrong. And he's not a political guy. First interview he did was 60 Minutes. I believe we did the second interview and we're doing an hour with him on Friday on radio. This guy is out now ringing the bell and he's been a quiet guy for a long time and he says our debt is not sustainable. How do you get the American people to understand that, you know, giving people money to help with their heating oil is not going to fix this economy. It is the massive overspending in Washington. And not just the earmarks but Social Security, Medicaid more specifically, and prescription drugs. It's got to be fixed. How do you get that message across?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I think the best way I've been able to get it across, and it is in my view why I've been able to do as well as I have in the season so far is that I say quite bluntly and with a major sign that's standing up behind me says Washington is broken. We simply cannot keep on going the way we have gone. We have to deal with the challenges we have. The good news is Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security can be fixed so that they don't have to weigh down our entire economy. The annual spending is --
GLENN: How? How do you fix it?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, yeah. Well, Social Security's the easiest and that's because you can give people a personal account, you can extend the retirement age and you can calculate the initial benefit based on inflation for higher income people rather than the wage index which goes up so much higher. Those simple arithmetic changes will keep Social Security from bankrupt.
GLENN: Hold it just a second. I can -- hold on. I think I just heard a politician say "Extend the retirement age"?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Those are the three major levers you have, changing the retirement age, giving people more of their income going in or their Social Security withdrawal going into private accounts, and having a lower rate of inflation on the calculation of initial benefits for higher income individuals. Those are the arithmetic ways to make this work. Other than having a tax increase. And the problem with a tax increase is you slow down the economy, which is the last thing you need in this nation.
GLENN: Do you ever get to the point, do you and your wife ever lay in bed and just say, what did we get ourselves into? I mean, I don't think we've ever seen a primary like this before. I mean, if there's anybody that seems to be taking it from all sides, it's your candidacy. Do you ever just say to your wife, what are we doing?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, we say that all the time, but what we know we're doing is running in this race because I don't believe that the Republican party is going to nominate a good man, Senator McCain, who is somebody who voted against the Bush tax cuts, who authored a bill to give illegal immigrants the right to stay here forever, if you will a form of amnesty. I fellow who authored McCain/Feingold which devastated our First Amendment and has made money an even bigger political player in political events. I just don't think that's the right course to take and for many reasons I think Mike Huckabee wouldn't be our nominee. So I look at it and say if they are not going to be able to it, somebody's got to. We're going on as long as the American people say that the accommodation of, if you will, Reagan's coalition of social economic and foreign policy conservatives are what are needed to lead this country.
GLENN: Okay. So tell me then, because this is something I've been asking on the air and my listeners can't give me an explanation on John McCain. Explain why -- I mean, every conservative knows who this guy is, and I admire that he never changes -- you know, he knows what he believes and he just, you know, he bucks the system and says I'm going forward and that's what it is, but he's wrong almost every single time. How is it that he's got this momentum?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You'd rather change than be wrong, but it is a combination. I read an article just a couple of days ago that said actually he was opposed to Second Amendment rights and then he has changed and now is in favor of Second Amendment rights and he, of course, voted against the Bush tax cuts but now he says that he wants to make them permanent. So, you know, he has had his fair share of points on which he has evolved as he's described it.
GLENN: Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait, wait, wait. That's not evolution. I mean, if there's a clear case to be made some case for flip-flop, it's John McCain. He was just trying to hand free amnesty out to everybody and was like, wow, you know, that was a bad idea; we shouldn't do that. That, at least with your abortion thing, you had an explanation. I don't understand how McCain's not being labeled a flip-flopper.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You know, I think it's just too hard for people to imagine because of the brand he's been able to establish over the years and I don't have any problem with a person changing their mind to do something which I think is right. I have to take a position which I think is right. And if somebody can go through life for decades and never find that their experience causes them to change their mind, then they probably shouldn't be in public office. I'm not going to be critical of somebody changing their views from time to time.
GLENN: But hang on.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: But I can tell you when their views are wrong, I'll point it out.
GLENN: The first time we spoke, I don't know if you remember this, I said to you -- I was very, very skeptical and I said before you came on the air, I'll going to ask this guy for his pivot point and if he can't tell me the moment that it crystallized in his head on abortion, if he can't tell me the wallpaper color of when he realized, "Wait a minute, I'm on the wrong side of this issue," he's lying to you. And you told the story about when you changed and you didn't hesitate at all and I knew it was a valid pivot point. I'm a pivot point guy because I'm a alcoholic. I knew -- I can tell you the moment I said I've got to change my life. That's not the case with John McCain. That's a flip-flop. When it comes to taxes, you don't support them back then and now, "well, I'll make them permanent but I'm not really sure if I would do more tax cuts now." That's a flip-flop. He doesn't even understand what tax cuts do.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Well, I do think you have to have an appreciation for the fact that if you reduce taxes, and particularly if you reduce them in the right way. You actually can grow the economy and make it possible for the Government to get more revenue and take less revenue away from the American people. And that's, you know, that's a very fundamental perspective and I know there were a lot of people, myself included, who didn't think that made a lot of sense a long time ago but you know what? The more I've aged, the more I recognize how brilliant Ronald Reagan was.
GLENN: Let's just, let's play a game here and let's just say that you are the guy facing off the other side. Who would you rather face?
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: You know, I don't know who that would be. I have to be honest with you. All three of the leading contenders are so extraordinarily liberal that I find it very, very hard to pick among them. I think it's going to be -- I do think it's going to be a Republican victory if I'm the nominee. I think if I go up against Hillary Clinton, I'll be able to say, Senator Clinton, you worked very hard to create a healthcare plan but there's a big difference between your plan and my plan. My plan got passed and yours didn't. And number two, mine didn't cost more money. It was paid for with money we were already spending. Yours cost, your new one cost $110 billion more. You impose one plan on the entire nation; I let each state craft their plan within guidelines that we helped put together. And number four, you give people government insurance; I don't do that. I let them get free market insurance.
GLENN: Mitt Romney, thank you so much. We'll talk to you again, my friend.
GOVERNOR ROMNEY: Have a great day.
__________________________________________
Rudy Giuliani interview
January 16, 2008 - 11:14 ET
GLENN: Now we go to Rudy Giuliani who is with us. Hello, Rudy.
GIULIANI: How are you?
GLENN: Very good. Where are you?
GIULIANI: I am in Jacksonville, Florida.
GLENN: Okay. You were talking, right now -- I mean, we're huge in Florida. We're talking to almost every city in Florida is listening to you right now and you have put everything into the Florida strategy. Karl Rove said to me just a few minutes ago, very risky strategy, never been done before. Do you ever kind of wake up in the middle of the night and go, jeez, maybe this was a mistake? Or are you feeling good about it?
GIULIANI: We feel good about it. I mean, this is the strategy that works for us. If you look back on it, it probably is the one that emphasizes our strengths and weaknesses the best, meaning the place where we would have the best chance. And we are campaigning very, very hard here, getting great reception. Tremendous enthusiasm. When you see how the rest of the field is kind of spread out with many different winners here and there, you get the feeling that -- you get the feeling that this strategy might very well be a good one. Even outsiders are getting the feeling. We feel this.
GLENN: I will tell you that when I first heard the strategy, I thought, I don't think that sounds like a good idea. But now that the field is so split up, you know, if they're -- I'm going to be real honest with you. The two people that I would vote for, you and Mitt Romney. And if it is Huckabee or McCain and I wasn't necessarily on your bandwagon, I would look at those two guys and go, I can't do that. So yes, Rudy Giuliani. I think there's a lot of sentiment like that and they're not sure. If it becomes a frontrunner of one of these guys that you absolutely would be in the position of, well, you know what, I know Rudy Giuliani, I know what he's about and I know that he really believes in tax cuts and everything else, I'll go for Rudy Giuliani. You may all of a sudden sweep.
GIULIANI: Well, I think the fact is the tax proposal we made has helped us a lot. It's got a great deal of attention here in Florida. It's the largest tax cut in American history, or would be the largest tax cut in American history. But that isn't even the main point of it. The main point of it is it would also provide a single one-page form that people could file.
GLENN: Hang on just a second.
GIULIANI: For paying their taxes.
GLENN: Hold on just a second. America I just have to -- this is adult material. This is practically pornography that you are talking right now. This is erotic talk come from you, Rudy Giuliani. It really is.
GIULIANI: And it works. When you look at the form, I think people will see that it works. It does preserve the key deductions critical to our economy really like home mortgage. You can't take away the home mortgage deduction right now. And it preserves the child care exemption, state and local taxes and the new exclusion that we're going to create for healthcare to encourage people to buy their own healthcare insurance.
GLENN: This is the only problem that I have with this plan because I love it. Don't get me wrong. I love it. But I wondered why you just didn't go for a flat, why you went for the three separate categories and then you added some stuff because that's where we always get in trouble. Because special interests will always say, well, wait a minute, add mine, too. Why didn't you just go flat?
GIULIANI: Well, we drew a line at, I think it's four, five, and that can all fit on one page. The idea is to have it fit on one page. And we picked the ones that aren't just special interests. In other words, we picked the ones that are core to our economy. For example, Glenn, right now if you took away the home mortgage deduction with what is going on in the housing market, you just couldn't responsibly do it. I mean, it would be a very, very devastating blow to an area of our economy that already has a lot to deal with. The charitable deduction I think would also be a big blow to all of these philanthropic organizations that do a lot of the work that otherwise would fall to government. And state and local taxes, it would totally recreate the whole tax scheme. You know, as I said, if we were starting income tax at the very beginning, I would be in favor of one, just a number, that's it, no deductions. But we have an economy now that's built around this. And second, the practical point, Glenn. This can get done. In other words, the political opposition to it would not overwhelm the support that you have for it. If you tried to take on all those things, I think as a practical matter you just wouldn't get it done.
GLENN: Let me ask you this. We've talked about this before and I think I'm a lot further down the road than you are, but I think you're at least on the same path that I am. If you look at CitiBank writing down $18 billion, and I don't think that's the end of it, unemployment coming up, inflation now coming up, I feel that we are about to hit very hard economic times and if you throw on global warming treaties, universal healthcare, higher taxes, socialist policies, I don't see a way, as Medicare, Medicaid and everything else starts to hit us, I don't see a way that we economically survive with the kinds of policies that the Democrats are going to put into place if they win next year. Right or wrong?
GIULIANI: Well, I agree with that. I think it would be devastating to our economy, it would really harm it, it would put a -- I describe it as putting a lid on our economy. You know, putting a halter on it so that it wouldn't be able to grow.
GLENN: I was -- I just had a five-day hospital stay and it was one of the worst experiences of my life and all these liberal blogs came out and said, oh, I wish he would have died in the hospital; now he's going to come out with some epiphany and said we should have universal healthcare and I came out and said the exact opposite. We need people who care, who remember that care is part of healthcare. I felt like I was being pushed out.
GIULIANI: Absolutely right. You need a personal relationship with your doctor. You need a personal relationship with a healthcare provider that you have so that you can make decisions with them.
GLENN: Right. And when somebody asked me last night, they said, who is the guy -- I think it was on CNN. They said who is the guy that you would want for healthcare, I said Rudy Giuliani. Could you please explain your healthcare proposal?
GIULIANI: Sure. My healthcare proposal is a tax exclusion of $15,000 if you buy your own health insurance, if you buy it personally. If you can buy it for $12,000, you get a $3,000 health savings account which you can put aside. It's yours. Nobody can touch it and you can use it for regular and ordinary healthcare expenses. What this will do, I believe, is move millions of people to the private healthcare market. That will have the impact of driving down the cost of private healthcare. If 15 million people are buying private health insurance instead of 17 million people, it's going to cost half the price.
GLENN: What Democrat would you rather face?
GIULIANI: Oh, I don't care, Glenn. Not only don't I care, I don't have anything to say about it. So you sort of have to be open to --
GLENN: There's not one that you go -- wait a minute. Hang on. There's just --
GIULIANI: Either Obama or Clinton, right?
GLENN: Well, no, you could face socialist John [ Edwards ] . I think he should wear a star on a furry cap. I've never seen anything like it.
GIULIANI: Well, John Edwards doesn't have a chance at this point but the other two, it could be either one of them.
GLENN: Yeah.What about, I mean, Dennis Kucinich, --
GIULIANI: It's still more likely Hillary, I think.
GLENN: -- is still in there fighting. All right, Rudy Giuliani, thank you very much.
GIULIANI: Thank you.
GLENN: Best of luck to you, sir. We'll talk to you again.
Newt
My continuing interest in American politics continues in today's blog, with this riveting Glenn beck Show interview with Newt Gingrich, former republican Speaker of the House.
If you are interested in what it truly means to be a Republican, and/or you have great respect for former President Ronald Reagan, then this is an interview you do not want to miss!
Enjoy!
______________________________________________________
Newt Gingrich Interview
January 16, 2008 - 10:27 ET
GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. This is the third most listened to show in all of America. My name is Glenn Beck. It's wall-to-wall politics today with some great guests. We have Karl Rove coming up. I want to ask him if you could give somebody advice, who would be the candidate right now that you would like to get into the corner and say, okay, look, you are missing it by 5%; here's what you do. I want to talk to him. Also Mitt Romney will be with us, Rudy Giuliani will be with us, and we have Newt Gingrich on the phone with us now. Mr. Gingrich, how are you, sir?
GINGRICH: I'm doing great. How are you?
GLENN: I'm very good. Glad to have you on. I know that you were on with Mr. Limbaugh last, what, a couple of days ago and you said that we're at the end of the George W. Bush era and end of the Reagan era. He disagreed with you. But in many ways I think you're right because I don't think that there are enough conservatives out there, enough people that can cross over into the conservative camp that understand, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and what real conservative values mean. Is that what you're talking about?
GINGRICH: Yeah, what I'm saying is, and I worked with Governor Reagan when he was a candidate and I worked with him when he was President and I served in the U.S. House at that time and he was a tremendous leader who spent from 1964 to 1980 teaching the country conservative values, creating the framework for his presidency and then had an astonishing presidency. But you can't run a country on nostalgia. You can't simply say, gosh, I wish it was 1980 again. What we have to do for our generation is articulate conservativism, show people how we would solve problems and have better solutions than liberals, not cheaper solutions, not solutions that are kind of liberal-like but genuinely different, effective approaches that apply conservative principles in the 21st century and make them effective in solving problems. And by the way, when Governor Reagan first ran for office in 1966, he gave a speech called the Creative Society and he said almost exactly that. He said the job of leaders is to provide real solutions based on values that work and that's the test you ought to hold them to. I think our core argument with liberalism is that it doesn't work but in the end big bureaucracy, big unions, big trial lawyers, the Hollywood left represent a future that will not work for America
GLENN: But too many people in America no longer believe that because there's no one out there that is really truly able to communicate the idea of smaller government and what we have is a bunch of -- why I feel so betrayed by the Republican party is they are no longer conservatives. They no longer -- you know what? It's like the Democrats have become the left, the real left, they become full-fledged socialist. I mean, I think John Edwards should just put a star on his little furry cap and the Republicans have become the old Democrats.
GINGRICH: Look, I think there is something to that and one of the reasons I wrote Real Change was that I've been actively involved in looking at this since I was a Sophomore in high school, actively helped build the Republican party in Georgia from 1960 on. And, you know, and I worked since years to help create a majority in the House. And when I look at what happened to that majority and the degree with which Republicans lost their way, it seemed to me the first step is to be in redefining what the roadmap is and the roadmap is towards a market oriented, economic growth oriented personal responsibility oriented model that actually works dramatically better than red tape and bureaucracy and high taxes.
GLENN: So -- and in your book you talk about the solutions on -- I mean, look. We are -- just look at the top of Drudge. Stocks set to plunge today. Inflation rate worst in 17 years. Those are today's headlines. And yet I saw in the Democratic debate last night they were talking about a stimulus package. It's not about a stimulus package. It is about healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drugs and earmarks completely out of control. If we were a company, our stock would be our dollar and it is collapsing. Do you propose a solution for this that people can actually connect to?
GINGRICH: Sure. First of all you don't want to propose a stimulus package. That's like steroids for athletes. You want an economic growth package and that package ought to start with less government spending, less bureaucracy, it ought to start with lower taxes, it ought to focus on how do we get people to create jobs, how do we compete with China and India successfully, how do we get breakthroughs in the cost of energy so that we can become less and less reliant on the Middle East. I think we need that kind of approach rather than how do I pump up the system in a way that is ultimately going to be very destructive. If all we do is transfer more money to government to hire more bureaucrats to give politicians more power, which is the essence of the Senator Clinton's proposal, we guarantee the country in the long run has lower growth with fewer jobs. This is the Michigan solution. You know, Michigan's a state which has an artificial recession, a recession caused by the Democrats in the state legislature and by the Democratic governor. It is not a state which has had to have this kind of future but at the very time when they had economic weakness, the Democrats raised taxes to hire more bureaucrats and the result is in one recent survey, 40% of the students who are graduating from Michigan and Michigan State have indicated they are going to leave Michigan as soon as they graduate because they have to go find a job outside of the state.
GLENN: Is there a candidate out there that you say, oh, if this guy would just do this one thing, he would be able to pull it off?
GINGRICH: No, I think there are several candidates who have promise and I think that this frankly, this extended competition is good for them. I think they are much better candidates today and have a much clearer sense of their message today than they did three months ago. And whether you are talking about Mitt Romney who legitimately earned a big win yesterday or you are talking about Fred Thompson who has a real shot in South Carolina, Governor Huckabee who I think is a much better candidate than he was three months ago, you know, or Rudy Giuliani who's taken, I think, an enormous gamble. But in my new book Real Change, I have a chapter on what Rudy achieved that is amazing, that when you look at New York today -- and you know this because you know the city so well. New York today is the safest big city in the United States. It had a 75% reduction in crime from 1993 to 2006. If you are in Houston, you have four times as big being involved in a crime than you do in New York City. That's an objective fact that's worth studying and that every political leader in the country ought to be looking at and you have to give Mayor Giuliani credit. That's fundamental change. That's a fundamentally different New York City than it was when he was elected.
GLENN: I remember coming to New York City in the early Eighties before he took over and it was a frightening, frightening place. And I saw it after. You know, it was nothing but hookers and crack dealers in Times Square. Now that is practically Disneyland in Times Square and it is all him. And, you know, I wonder, because we were talking about this last night, how Rudy Giuliani's only getting 3% here and 3% there where he was the frontrunner before and I think that it is probably because most people in America never really understood what he did in New York City. You know, I hear that, you know, oh, we're tired of him talking about New York City. But what he did here in New York City was damn near a miracle.
GINGRICH: Well, it was. I think if I had any advice to offer Mayor Giuliani, it would have been to describe for America what you would do for America and then use the city stories only as backup that you could do it. Because I think what happened was, this is my point about not trying to reinvent the Reagan era but trying to take the principles of Reaganism and apply to 2008. People want to know now: So what are you going to do for America now. And frankly has Mayor Giuliani gone to Philadelphia which has had 3,000 people killed since 1988 and has arguably the worst murder rate in the country. Had he done a major speech in Philadelphia on the number of lives that would have been saved if Philadelphia politicians had followed his.
GLENN: Yeah.
GINGRICH: You know, you go down that kind of a list and he could have had a much more direct impact. Now, the question for him's going to be, does his strategy of going to Florida work, is he able to skip all of these early results and not collapse. I just did an interview early this morning with the Miami radio station and they said he has a very, very big presence in Florida and that they thought he had a very real chance of winning the Florida primary. If he does, then he is right in the middle of the game.
GLENN: Yeah. I mean, you look almost like a prophet at this point with the name of your book, Real Change. The thing that drives me nuts is so many people, especially when it comes to Obama, they will say, yeah, we want change. But people don't -- I mean, change is -- you know, going from a steamship to the Zeppelin turned out to be a really bad kind of change. It's not just change for change sake. The name of the book is Real Change. What is that real change?
GINGRICH: Well, let me say that there are three kinds of change. First of all there is the politician who's consultant, a focus who learned to say why didn't you say the word change, I'm for change, let's have change. That has zero meaning. It's, I think, so shallow as to be laughable. Then there are people as you point out like Senator Clinton and Senator Obama who are for the wrong changes. They are for changes that are going to have higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy, more red tape, more trial lawyers, more left wing social policies. We have no evidence anywhere on the planet that that model works. And we have every evidence that when it's tried, the economy gets worse, people get more unhappy, the country gets weaker and so bad change is not a good thing, either. But I think what America, the American people understand and what the Republican party has to come to grips with is the current solutions aren't working. The current systems aren't working. Whether you are talking about our energy policy or whether you're talking about what's happening with the failure of the Detroit schools to teach people or whether you're talking about the visa program. You know, there's a grave danger that London will replace New York as the leading financial center in the world. That has a huge economic complication not just for New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut but that has a big economic implication for every American if, in fact, the center of financial activity leaves the U.S. and goes overseas S. It's going to indirectly affect the cost of every bond issued by every city and every state government. It's going to indirectly affect the difficulty of raising capital for every person who wants to start a small business and I think in that sense we need to take seriously what are the real changes we need in order to make sure that New York remains the leading financial center, what are the changes we need to make sure that American workers can compete with China and India successfully, keep their jobs and increase their prosperity. And what are the changes we need to invent the technology of the future so that we can get off of oil as a primary source of energy and be in a hydrogen economy, in an alternative fuels economy, in a conservation economy, in a package that enables us to basically ignore Saudi Arabia and Iran and Iraq and Russia and Venezuela and just say, fine, if you want to use those petrochemical stops but we don't need to buy them.
GLENN: I'm on a tight schedule today and let me just ask you one quick question before I cut you loose. With what you're seeing in the economy, with what you're seeing in CitiBank and everything else and what I, you know, fear might happen and we would have Democrats come into the White House and congress, how worried are you about our economy and what you think is on the horizon?
GINGRICH: Well, I'm worried about our economy at two totally different levels. I'm worried about it in the short run because there's a grave danger, if you look at the price of oil and the price of gold and if you look at the jump in wholesale prices last year, there's a grave danger we're going to start reinventing the Seventies and have a kind of stagflation where we're not growing economically but we have inflation. That's the worst of all worlds because, you know, you can't reduce interest rates in order to get the economy growing because you have to worry about inflation. And if you raise interest rates enough to deal with inflation, you crush the economy. And that's what happened to us under Jimmy Carter. If we are drifting into that kind of policy, we are in big trouble. The second thing I worry about is longer term. If we're going to compete with China and India in a world of dramatic scientific change, we have to have schools, we have to have young people learning math and science, we have to have a tax code that encourages savings and investing and job creation. We have to have a tax code that encourages buying new equipment and new technology and we have to streamline our red tape and our litigation so that it's desirable to create jobs in the U.S. I think you have both the short-term, how do I get through the next few months, and you have a long term, how do I make sure that the policies I adopt to get through the next few months actually move me towards being more competitive and being more energy independent because those are the two keys to our having a healthy economy over the next 15 years.
GLENN: Author of the book Real Change, Newt Gingrich. Thanks, Newt.
GINGRICH: Thank you.
If you are interested in what it truly means to be a Republican, and/or you have great respect for former President Ronald Reagan, then this is an interview you do not want to miss!
Enjoy!
______________________________________________________
Newt Gingrich Interview
January 16, 2008 - 10:27 ET
GLENN: From Radio City in Midtown Manhattan, hello, you sick twisted freak. Welcome to the program. This is the third most listened to show in all of America. My name is Glenn Beck. It's wall-to-wall politics today with some great guests. We have Karl Rove coming up. I want to ask him if you could give somebody advice, who would be the candidate right now that you would like to get into the corner and say, okay, look, you are missing it by 5%; here's what you do. I want to talk to him. Also Mitt Romney will be with us, Rudy Giuliani will be with us, and we have Newt Gingrich on the phone with us now. Mr. Gingrich, how are you, sir?
GINGRICH: I'm doing great. How are you?
GLENN: I'm very good. Glad to have you on. I know that you were on with Mr. Limbaugh last, what, a couple of days ago and you said that we're at the end of the George W. Bush era and end of the Reagan era. He disagreed with you. But in many ways I think you're right because I don't think that there are enough conservatives out there, enough people that can cross over into the conservative camp that understand, pull yourself up by the bootstraps and what real conservative values mean. Is that what you're talking about?
GINGRICH: Yeah, what I'm saying is, and I worked with Governor Reagan when he was a candidate and I worked with him when he was President and I served in the U.S. House at that time and he was a tremendous leader who spent from 1964 to 1980 teaching the country conservative values, creating the framework for his presidency and then had an astonishing presidency. But you can't run a country on nostalgia. You can't simply say, gosh, I wish it was 1980 again. What we have to do for our generation is articulate conservativism, show people how we would solve problems and have better solutions than liberals, not cheaper solutions, not solutions that are kind of liberal-like but genuinely different, effective approaches that apply conservative principles in the 21st century and make them effective in solving problems. And by the way, when Governor Reagan first ran for office in 1966, he gave a speech called the Creative Society and he said almost exactly that. He said the job of leaders is to provide real solutions based on values that work and that's the test you ought to hold them to. I think our core argument with liberalism is that it doesn't work but in the end big bureaucracy, big unions, big trial lawyers, the Hollywood left represent a future that will not work for America
GLENN: But too many people in America no longer believe that because there's no one out there that is really truly able to communicate the idea of smaller government and what we have is a bunch of -- why I feel so betrayed by the Republican party is they are no longer conservatives. They no longer -- you know what? It's like the Democrats have become the left, the real left, they become full-fledged socialist. I mean, I think John Edwards should just put a star on his little furry cap and the Republicans have become the old Democrats.
GINGRICH: Look, I think there is something to that and one of the reasons I wrote Real Change was that I've been actively involved in looking at this since I was a Sophomore in high school, actively helped build the Republican party in Georgia from 1960 on. And, you know, and I worked since years to help create a majority in the House. And when I look at what happened to that majority and the degree with which Republicans lost their way, it seemed to me the first step is to be in redefining what the roadmap is and the roadmap is towards a market oriented, economic growth oriented personal responsibility oriented model that actually works dramatically better than red tape and bureaucracy and high taxes.
GLENN: So -- and in your book you talk about the solutions on -- I mean, look. We are -- just look at the top of Drudge. Stocks set to plunge today. Inflation rate worst in 17 years. Those are today's headlines. And yet I saw in the Democratic debate last night they were talking about a stimulus package. It's not about a stimulus package. It is about healthcare, Medicare, Medicaid, prescription drugs and earmarks completely out of control. If we were a company, our stock would be our dollar and it is collapsing. Do you propose a solution for this that people can actually connect to?
GINGRICH: Sure. First of all you don't want to propose a stimulus package. That's like steroids for athletes. You want an economic growth package and that package ought to start with less government spending, less bureaucracy, it ought to start with lower taxes, it ought to focus on how do we get people to create jobs, how do we compete with China and India successfully, how do we get breakthroughs in the cost of energy so that we can become less and less reliant on the Middle East. I think we need that kind of approach rather than how do I pump up the system in a way that is ultimately going to be very destructive. If all we do is transfer more money to government to hire more bureaucrats to give politicians more power, which is the essence of the Senator Clinton's proposal, we guarantee the country in the long run has lower growth with fewer jobs. This is the Michigan solution. You know, Michigan's a state which has an artificial recession, a recession caused by the Democrats in the state legislature and by the Democratic governor. It is not a state which has had to have this kind of future but at the very time when they had economic weakness, the Democrats raised taxes to hire more bureaucrats and the result is in one recent survey, 40% of the students who are graduating from Michigan and Michigan State have indicated they are going to leave Michigan as soon as they graduate because they have to go find a job outside of the state.
GLENN: Is there a candidate out there that you say, oh, if this guy would just do this one thing, he would be able to pull it off?
GINGRICH: No, I think there are several candidates who have promise and I think that this frankly, this extended competition is good for them. I think they are much better candidates today and have a much clearer sense of their message today than they did three months ago. And whether you are talking about Mitt Romney who legitimately earned a big win yesterday or you are talking about Fred Thompson who has a real shot in South Carolina, Governor Huckabee who I think is a much better candidate than he was three months ago, you know, or Rudy Giuliani who's taken, I think, an enormous gamble. But in my new book Real Change, I have a chapter on what Rudy achieved that is amazing, that when you look at New York today -- and you know this because you know the city so well. New York today is the safest big city in the United States. It had a 75% reduction in crime from 1993 to 2006. If you are in Houston, you have four times as big being involved in a crime than you do in New York City. That's an objective fact that's worth studying and that every political leader in the country ought to be looking at and you have to give Mayor Giuliani credit. That's fundamental change. That's a fundamentally different New York City than it was when he was elected.
GLENN: I remember coming to New York City in the early Eighties before he took over and it was a frightening, frightening place. And I saw it after. You know, it was nothing but hookers and crack dealers in Times Square. Now that is practically Disneyland in Times Square and it is all him. And, you know, I wonder, because we were talking about this last night, how Rudy Giuliani's only getting 3% here and 3% there where he was the frontrunner before and I think that it is probably because most people in America never really understood what he did in New York City. You know, I hear that, you know, oh, we're tired of him talking about New York City. But what he did here in New York City was damn near a miracle.
GINGRICH: Well, it was. I think if I had any advice to offer Mayor Giuliani, it would have been to describe for America what you would do for America and then use the city stories only as backup that you could do it. Because I think what happened was, this is my point about not trying to reinvent the Reagan era but trying to take the principles of Reaganism and apply to 2008. People want to know now: So what are you going to do for America now. And frankly has Mayor Giuliani gone to Philadelphia which has had 3,000 people killed since 1988 and has arguably the worst murder rate in the country. Had he done a major speech in Philadelphia on the number of lives that would have been saved if Philadelphia politicians had followed his.
GLENN: Yeah.
GINGRICH: You know, you go down that kind of a list and he could have had a much more direct impact. Now, the question for him's going to be, does his strategy of going to Florida work, is he able to skip all of these early results and not collapse. I just did an interview early this morning with the Miami radio station and they said he has a very, very big presence in Florida and that they thought he had a very real chance of winning the Florida primary. If he does, then he is right in the middle of the game.
GLENN: Yeah. I mean, you look almost like a prophet at this point with the name of your book, Real Change. The thing that drives me nuts is so many people, especially when it comes to Obama, they will say, yeah, we want change. But people don't -- I mean, change is -- you know, going from a steamship to the Zeppelin turned out to be a really bad kind of change. It's not just change for change sake. The name of the book is Real Change. What is that real change?
GINGRICH: Well, let me say that there are three kinds of change. First of all there is the politician who's consultant, a focus who learned to say why didn't you say the word change, I'm for change, let's have change. That has zero meaning. It's, I think, so shallow as to be laughable. Then there are people as you point out like Senator Clinton and Senator Obama who are for the wrong changes. They are for changes that are going to have higher taxes, bigger bureaucracy, more red tape, more trial lawyers, more left wing social policies. We have no evidence anywhere on the planet that that model works. And we have every evidence that when it's tried, the economy gets worse, people get more unhappy, the country gets weaker and so bad change is not a good thing, either. But I think what America, the American people understand and what the Republican party has to come to grips with is the current solutions aren't working. The current systems aren't working. Whether you are talking about our energy policy or whether you're talking about what's happening with the failure of the Detroit schools to teach people or whether you're talking about the visa program. You know, there's a grave danger that London will replace New York as the leading financial center in the world. That has a huge economic complication not just for New York City and New Jersey and Connecticut but that has a big economic implication for every American if, in fact, the center of financial activity leaves the U.S. and goes overseas S. It's going to indirectly affect the cost of every bond issued by every city and every state government. It's going to indirectly affect the difficulty of raising capital for every person who wants to start a small business and I think in that sense we need to take seriously what are the real changes we need in order to make sure that New York remains the leading financial center, what are the changes we need to make sure that American workers can compete with China and India successfully, keep their jobs and increase their prosperity. And what are the changes we need to invent the technology of the future so that we can get off of oil as a primary source of energy and be in a hydrogen economy, in an alternative fuels economy, in a conservation economy, in a package that enables us to basically ignore Saudi Arabia and Iran and Iraq and Russia and Venezuela and just say, fine, if you want to use those petrochemical stops but we don't need to buy them.
GLENN: I'm on a tight schedule today and let me just ask you one quick question before I cut you loose. With what you're seeing in the economy, with what you're seeing in CitiBank and everything else and what I, you know, fear might happen and we would have Democrats come into the White House and congress, how worried are you about our economy and what you think is on the horizon?
GINGRICH: Well, I'm worried about our economy at two totally different levels. I'm worried about it in the short run because there's a grave danger, if you look at the price of oil and the price of gold and if you look at the jump in wholesale prices last year, there's a grave danger we're going to start reinventing the Seventies and have a kind of stagflation where we're not growing economically but we have inflation. That's the worst of all worlds because, you know, you can't reduce interest rates in order to get the economy growing because you have to worry about inflation. And if you raise interest rates enough to deal with inflation, you crush the economy. And that's what happened to us under Jimmy Carter. If we are drifting into that kind of policy, we are in big trouble. The second thing I worry about is longer term. If we're going to compete with China and India in a world of dramatic scientific change, we have to have schools, we have to have young people learning math and science, we have to have a tax code that encourages savings and investing and job creation. We have to have a tax code that encourages buying new equipment and new technology and we have to streamline our red tape and our litigation so that it's desirable to create jobs in the U.S. I think you have both the short-term, how do I get through the next few months, and you have a long term, how do I make sure that the policies I adopt to get through the next few months actually move me towards being more competitive and being more energy independent because those are the two keys to our having a healthy economy over the next 15 years.
GLENN: Author of the book Real Change, Newt Gingrich. Thanks, Newt.
GINGRICH: Thank you.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
My Snargle-Farb
Happy Snargle-Farb to me!
Happy Snargle-Farb to me!
Happy Snargle-Farb to me-ee!
Happy Snargle-Farb to me!
Snargle-Farb...
It's the celebration before one's birthday, when one cannot celebrate on one's birthday for other reasons.
For my Snargle-Farb, I went out with R and C to a nice seafood dinner, then came home and had a couple slices of cheesecake and some fizzy raspberry drink.
At my dinner out, my Snargle-Farb dinner, I got to open my first (Snargle-Farb) gift, which was a crazy-haired slamming thingy guy. Uh, you drop it on a hard surface, and it makes crazy noises (says "you're crazy" and burps loudly, laughs hysterically, or sings "Great Balls Of Fire" and burps again).
At home, after the cheescake, i got a couple of cool cards, and a Max Lucado book, and a nice hooded sweatshirt.
Cool! Happy Snargle-Farb to me, indeed!
Happy Snargle-Farb to me!
Happy Snargle-Farb to me-ee!
Happy Snargle-Farb to me!
Snargle-Farb...
It's the celebration before one's birthday, when one cannot celebrate on one's birthday for other reasons.
For my Snargle-Farb, I went out with R and C to a nice seafood dinner, then came home and had a couple slices of cheesecake and some fizzy raspberry drink.
At my dinner out, my Snargle-Farb dinner, I got to open my first (Snargle-Farb) gift, which was a crazy-haired slamming thingy guy. Uh, you drop it on a hard surface, and it makes crazy noises (says "you're crazy" and burps loudly, laughs hysterically, or sings "Great Balls Of Fire" and burps again).
At home, after the cheescake, i got a couple of cool cards, and a Max Lucado book, and a nice hooded sweatshirt.
Cool! Happy Snargle-Farb to me, indeed!
Monday, January 7, 2008
Hello Again!
Ah, hello my friends! It is good to be blogging again.
For the last two days, i have been wanting to post here and talk with you, but have been unable to. Finally, in my frustration, I composed an email to the support team for this website, describing the dilemna I have been having, and asking for their assistance. 30 seconds after sending off the email, i figured out the problem by myself. Perhaps God told me the answer, as I had been stumped for days. Anyways, low and behold, I pressed one button on my computer, and, ta-da, I am back blogging.
So, ofthand, i do not remember when I blogged last. So, I am not sure how much I have to catch up on, how far back i need to go.
Christmas 2007 was pretty decent. We kept it low-key, just the three of us and my in-laws, sitting around for about three hours opening gifts around the tree, taking lots of photographs. Good times were had by all. Followed, of course, by the traditional scrumptous turkey dinner. Yum! I was a glutton, and ate two huge helpings, and then passed out on the couch.
The days immediately after Christmas, R and I spent shopping. We bought some new Christmas ornaments, including our very first nativity scene.
New Years's Eve was an experiment, and it went partially okay. R and I went out for dinner at a local pub, and had a fantastic meal. Then we paid too much money for tickets to a dance that we did not really enjoy, and left after an hour or so. R was feeling nauseous and dizzy, and i just wasn't digging the music too much. So, we went back home, hooked back up briefly with my in-laws (who had been taking care of C for us), and I crashed and hit the sack by 11pm; didn't even get to see the new calendar year start!
A couple of days ago, we went to Kelowna, where we bought some snowshoes for the three of us. We were supposed to hook up with my parents, but Dad was sick-feeling, so we had to put that on hold. We did, however, pick up K and spend a few hours with her We ended up taking the girls to Scandia to play mini-golf. We thought it would be fun, but pretty much all of us ended up not-liking the experience.
So, on Friday we went up to a large cross-country ski area about a kilometer from a local ski resort. There, we spent a few hours as a family, learning to snowshoe. We actually found it to be quite enjoyable, once we figured out how to put the snowshoes together and get them on our feet! It was great weather, both for driving there and for snowshoeing. After that, we took our very first visit to the already-mentioned ski resort, where we took in the ski village and had a bite to eat.
I just recently came off of five days off in a row. Sunday was my first day back at work, and my first supervisor shift where i worked from 6pm-2am. It is an odd shift, but i did not mind too much. Things are going well at work.
R and C are back at work/school today, first day back after Christmas vacation.
That's all i can think to write for now.
Slainte!
For the last two days, i have been wanting to post here and talk with you, but have been unable to. Finally, in my frustration, I composed an email to the support team for this website, describing the dilemna I have been having, and asking for their assistance. 30 seconds after sending off the email, i figured out the problem by myself. Perhaps God told me the answer, as I had been stumped for days. Anyways, low and behold, I pressed one button on my computer, and, ta-da, I am back blogging.
So, ofthand, i do not remember when I blogged last. So, I am not sure how much I have to catch up on, how far back i need to go.
Christmas 2007 was pretty decent. We kept it low-key, just the three of us and my in-laws, sitting around for about three hours opening gifts around the tree, taking lots of photographs. Good times were had by all. Followed, of course, by the traditional scrumptous turkey dinner. Yum! I was a glutton, and ate two huge helpings, and then passed out on the couch.
The days immediately after Christmas, R and I spent shopping. We bought some new Christmas ornaments, including our very first nativity scene.
New Years's Eve was an experiment, and it went partially okay. R and I went out for dinner at a local pub, and had a fantastic meal. Then we paid too much money for tickets to a dance that we did not really enjoy, and left after an hour or so. R was feeling nauseous and dizzy, and i just wasn't digging the music too much. So, we went back home, hooked back up briefly with my in-laws (who had been taking care of C for us), and I crashed and hit the sack by 11pm; didn't even get to see the new calendar year start!
A couple of days ago, we went to Kelowna, where we bought some snowshoes for the three of us. We were supposed to hook up with my parents, but Dad was sick-feeling, so we had to put that on hold. We did, however, pick up K and spend a few hours with her We ended up taking the girls to Scandia to play mini-golf. We thought it would be fun, but pretty much all of us ended up not-liking the experience.
So, on Friday we went up to a large cross-country ski area about a kilometer from a local ski resort. There, we spent a few hours as a family, learning to snowshoe. We actually found it to be quite enjoyable, once we figured out how to put the snowshoes together and get them on our feet! It was great weather, both for driving there and for snowshoeing. After that, we took our very first visit to the already-mentioned ski resort, where we took in the ski village and had a bite to eat.
I just recently came off of five days off in a row. Sunday was my first day back at work, and my first supervisor shift where i worked from 6pm-2am. It is an odd shift, but i did not mind too much. Things are going well at work.
R and C are back at work/school today, first day back after Christmas vacation.
That's all i can think to write for now.
Slainte!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.bmp)
