Democrats: "A Grande Bailout!"

News from Scrappleface:

(2008-07-02) — Democrats in Congress today plan to introduce a bill to halt the recently-announced closing of some 600 Starbucks coffee stores, noting that the displacement of 12,000 Starbucks baristas would overwhelm government aid offices not prepared to handle so many clients for whom English is a second language.

“These people can’t just walk out of Starbucks and get a job at a grocery store or a factory,” said House Majority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA. “They would need ESL classes and cultural training to learn how to relate to ordinary Americans and function in society.”

Rep. Pelosi’s bill would subsidize the 600 money-losing Starbucks locations by giving away millions of taxpayer dollars in so-called ‘Venti Vouchers’ to residents of these hard-hit neighborhoods. If the effort fails to revive the flagging stores, Rep. Pelosi said Democrats would “seriously consider nationalizing the coffee industry to ensure the free flow of java at fair prices.”

“This is just another one of our Democrat efforts to protect Americans from the impact of the Bush economic policies,” said Rep. Pelosi. “Under this president, America has become a cold and desolate place where corporations cut unprofitable activities to focus on increasing the bottom line, and returning value to shareholders. When Democrats retake the White House next year, we will reverse that trend.”

Democrats Reference the Wrong Presidents and Show Their Colors

The past week has seen a lot of hoo-ha from those in the Democratic Party about references to ex-presidents made by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for those on the left, and those REALLY on the left, the candidates referenced the wrong historical figures.

Hillary seemed to give more credit to LBJ than to MLK for the success of the civil rights movement (see clip above) and Obama waxed admiring about the transcendent presidency of Ronald Reagan (also see above clip). Woah. A week away from MLK Day and the South Carolina Primary and you talk down the importance of the most significant civil rights leader the U.S. has seen? Why? To pander to the LBJ wing of the Democratic Party? The truth is, actually, yes. But I don't think this wing of the party, nor Hillary, thinks that MLK was unimportant and I don't think they're racist. I do think, however, that this shows a political candidate who believes that it takes government to make things happen. In her world view, leadership comes from the top down, not the other way around. Yet this betrays the true essence of the civil rights movement which was a people-first, grassroots revolution. In a Hillary administration, we can expect more of this thinking: solutions come only when government "allows" them; change only occurs when it is handed down to the people like the commandments from Moses. What America needs most at this moment is not more government interference, it needs government to recuse itself from the case and allow the people to decide what's best for themselves just as it was the people whom LBJ couldn't ignore when he signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

The other political faux pas this week came from Barack Obama. He said that he believed that Reagan had, "Changed the trajectory of America...because the country was ready for it." Obama has been attacked on all sides of the liberal spectrum, from John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, to the New York Times and the entire lefty blogosphere. But this too is an example of a political candidate showing his colors with a statement destined to be unpopular during primary season. No, I don't think that Obama is the next Reagan, he's an unashamed liberal, but he's smart to run as a "change" candidate. He may take some heat now, but it makes him more electable in a general election. It shows that he's above the irrational, partisan fray of election year politics. And it shows that he's a candidate that is interested in creating a movement similar to the Reagan Democrats. Obama Republicans has a nice ring to it, but it won't happen. His claim to transcendence is based more on audacious oratory than on any real record of change. But while he may not be able to deliver on the rhetoric, it can give him a great chance starting in January 2009 to prove it.