I read this very good post by Erick Erickson at Red State. He makes some very good points! Hope Erick doesn’t mind my spreading the word and posting it here in its entirety. I’m not claiming any credit, it is not my writing … all credit goes to Mr. Erickson!!
Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)
Monday, July 9th at 4:46AM EDT
Despite making clear that I was not advocating a third party, but rather recognizing that one will spring up if the Republican leadership does not pay attention to the state of its own party, many not only assumed wrongly my advocacy, but resorted to the worn out argument of the Republican leaders over several generations — “we must fight the Democrats first” or the variant “the top priority is beating Barack Obama.”
The problem with this argument is it never ends. How many more trillion dollars must we add to the national debt before the “wait and focus on the other side first” crowd wakes up to what they have enabled?
When George Bush decided to pass Ted Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind plan as his own, conservatives were told they needed to rally and help the President, given his victory while losing the popular vote. We needed unity.
After steel tariffs for Pennsylvania, “hush,” we were told because we were trying to set the stage for a re-election.
Then came the prescription drug benefit and we better not challenge the President because … 9/11 … patriotism … build the party.
He nominated Harriet Miers and more than half the conservative establishment beclowned themselves standing with him.
Then came immigration reform and those who disagreed from the right were racists. Solidarity!
TARP . . . the General Motors bailout . . . still Republicans told Republicans we couldn’t hold our own side accountable because we needed to fight the left “and oh my goodness litmus tests!!!!!”
Earmarks? “Litmus tests!!!!” and “pshaw, they’re just a little teeny-tiny piece of the budget.”
That was some time around $10 trillion in national debt.
Then the GOP began cutting deals with Barack Obama. “Trust them,” others said, “they have a plan.” The tea party led them to victory and the tea party congressmen started voting just like their leadership. The debt ceiling increased, spending expanded, Pledge to Nowhere pledges were breached, and still we hear “we have to fight the other side first.”
Friends, at what point do we hold our side accountable? $20 trillion in debt? $50 trillion in debt? Contrary to what some of you want to think, it was not the Democrats who got us to $16 trillion in national debt. It was bipartisan. Some of it legitimate, much of it not, and all to the tune of “let’s focus on the Democrats instead. They’re the real bad guys here.”
The leaders of the GOP give lip service to smaller government but just last week shut down legitimate private businesses to feed the leviathan more tax revenue. Republicans in the House of Representatives are now urging candidates not to sign the ATR tax pledge and Republicans in the Senate are cutting deals that will boost revenue because — deficits. And still they add to the debt.
So if not now, when? Not until we’re all speaking Chinese apparently.
If the conservative movement cannot fight on two fronts, we’re screwed. But some of you will be okay with that as long as its an elephant and not a donkey screwing you.
I salute Congressman Artur Davis, the former Black Democratic Senator, who has left the Democratic Party because in his words,”wearing a Democratic label no longer matches what I know about my country and its possibilities.
On the specifics, I have regularly criticized an agenda that would punish businesses and job creators with more taxes just as they are trying to thrive again. I have taken issue with an administration that has lapsed into a bloc by bloc appeal to group grievances when the country is already too fractured: frankly, the symbolism of Barack Obama winning has not given us the substance of a united country.”
I am sure Artur Davis will be excoriated for this in the liberal press. He will be labeled an Uncle Tom, etc. It is unfortunate that any independent, free-thinkingBlack man or woman who steps off the Democratic Plantation gets treated in this fashion. But, then again, this is the same administration that labels me a possible terrorist because I am white, former military, and an NRA member; and I support true Freedom of Speech (not just the freedom of politically correct speech), the Second Amendment, states rights, and I love (and have always been proud of) my Country without having to “fundamentally transform” it first.
I am a conservative and I am not a racist. For a long time it has seemed to me that Liberal Democrats are the ones always wanting to categorize us (black, white, hispanic, gay, etc.) and then pit one group against the other; while conservatives tend to think in terms of “Americans.” Most of the conservatives I know base their decisions about a person on that person’s character; not their creed, color, or religion. While there are certainly some racist conservatives out there, the party that uses race as a weapon is, and has been for a long time, the Democratic Party!
I was on another blog the other day and spotted a new “nick name for our peerless leader! We should all call him “The Teflon President,” because in the American drive-by media … absolutely nothing sticks to him.
I seem to remember that during the 2008 presidential election, Barack Obama promised to lead the most transparent administration in U.S. history. However, he has failed to deliver on his promise. In fact, quite the opposite is true. The anointed One’s administration’s approach to governing is to: Choose or create a problem, stridently proclaim the urgent need to address it, propose hurried legislation, and then try to ram it through Congress before congress or people have a chance to read it or appreciate the exact effect it will have on the nation.
Remember the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac bailout? The truth is that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was a democratic bill signed by Jimmy Carter and enhanced by Bill Clinton (who had the Justice Department rewrite it). Put in the hands of crooks like Barney Frank, Democrat and Chris Dodd, Democrat (who should both be sharing a cell with Jack Abramoff); it forced banks to make mortgage loans to people who simply could not afford them …. or face government sanctions and violent protests by ACORN members outside their banking offices. So … while banks are not without blame for the housing market collapse , the lion’s share of the blame truthfully belongs to the Democrats. Well, it now seems the U.S. government’s mortgage monster is again in trouble. Fannie Mae lost money in the fourth quarter and is asking the federal government for nearly $4.6 billion in aid to cover its deficit. But never fear … Obama says the economy is improving!
Recently, Obama gave a speech at an SEIU (another flavor of ACORN) gathering where he raised $80,000,000 for his campaign fund. Amid cheers and praises and loud chants of “YES WE CAN'” , Obama spewed forth a record number of lies and half-truths! Obama knows many Americans will not put forth any effort to check his claims and will just accept them as fact because he spoke them. After all, he is the Chosen One … descended from on High to leads us to Amertopia, where we are all equally miserable and slaves to an Omniscient, Omnipotent Government (the liberal left’s PC version of God). Obama is really very skilful at telling lies and half-truths that sound good enough to be true. After all, the Cool Aid drinkers will believe anything he spews forth and too many others are just too plain lazy to check the facts! You have to dig a little deeper to get at the truth and that takes work … something the Obama administration discourages regularly.
And lo and behold, … our Messiah has finally gotten around to coming up with a budget (Can you say … “re-election year”); which, much to my surprise, does not cut any real spending …. and in fact, increases our deficit spending and raises all sorts of taxes (both direct and indirect). Oh … and did I mention that the interest on my student loans (taken over by Obama’s administration) is about to double … from 3.2% to 6.4%! Yay! I am not sure which makes me happier …. that … or $6-a-gallon gasoline! Anyway, here are some prime examples from Obama’s proposed budget to chew on:
Obama Budget Claim: $850 billion in savings from ending wars. $230 billion of those savings will be used on highways.
The Fact: There is no direct peace savings. The money that was used for the wars was borrowed money. If they are to spend it on something else (assuming they can end the wars) they would have to continue to borrow money.
Obama Budget Claim: Taxes on the rich will be increased, breaks for the oil and gas industry’s will end, some spending programs the president is willing to sacrifice, will be cut.
The Fact: There has been no tax increases passed, and any effort to do so will be inevitably blocked by republicans. As it stands right now, the “tax the rich” narrative is nothing more then a campaign promise if he gets re-elected.
Obama Budget Claim: The U.S. will see good GDP growth. The Budget predicts that it will reach 4 percent in 2014 and 4.2 in 2015.
The Fact: Basing a budget on speculative growth is irresponsible. Looking back, the White House GDP projection for 2011 was 2.7 percent. It was actually 1.7 falling a percentage point. For 2012, the White House at first projected 3.6 percent growth, but has since been lowered to 3 percent. Several reputable firms such as IHS Global Insight have their projections around the 2 – 2.1 percent range. Their record of past projections have been much stronger then the White House’s speculation.
Considering that 2012 is an election year, we could guess that the Obama budget would contain some wild promises, but the released budget was chock full of stretched promises based on non-existent savings.
On Sunday, February 12, 2012, Obama sent his Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, out to demonize the Republican Party as a smoke screen when people began asking why his administration had not passed a budget since his election. Jack Lew lied to every single mainstream media outlet that would welcome his lies. And not ONE network host challenged his bold-faced lies!
MR. GREGORY: So the leadership deficit in Washington has had an impact on what business does in America and certainly our economic outlook. Here’s a stat that a lot of people may not know, but it’s pretty striking. The number of days since Senate Democrats passed a budget is 1,019. Can you just explain as a former budget director, how do you fund the government when there’s no budget?
MR. LEW: Well, you know, one of the things about the United States Senate that I think the American people have realized is that it takes 60, not 50 votes to pass something. And there has been Republican opposition to anything that Senate Democrats have tried to do. So it, it is a challenge in the United States Senate to pass legislation when there’s not that willingness to work together. Congress didn’t do a great job last year. It, it, it drove right to the edge of a cliff on occasion after occasion. I actually think it’s unfair to blame the United States Senate for that. A lot of that was because of the extreme, you know, conservative approach taken by House Republicans.
CROWLEY: I know we’ll want to talk about the tax hikes in a second, but I want to read for our viewers something that Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader in the U.S. Senate, who said, we do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year. It’s done. We don’t need to do it, talking about last year’s two-year agreement and saying that, you know, so it’s already done.
This budget, I can assure you and you know, because you’ve been in this town for a long time, is going to be attacked as a political document. This is a budget that promises 2 million more jobs if it’s passed, so that come September the president can go out there and say, well, if they’d only passed by budget, we’d have 2 million more jobs, but those darn Republicans are standing in my way, when, in fact, even the Democratic leader in the Senate says, you know what, we don’t need a budget.
LEW: Well, let’s be clear. What Senator Reid is talking about is a fairly narrow point. In order for the Senate to do its annual work on appropriation bills, they need to pass a certain piece of legislation which sets a limit. They did that last year. That’s what he’s talking about.
He’s not saying that they shouldn’t pass a budget. But we also need to be honest. You can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes, and you can’t get 60 votes without bipartisan support. So unless Republicans…
Most business in the Senate is subject to filibustering — that is, actions, or even just threats, to talk a bill to death. Filibusters can be overcome by what’s known as a “cloture” vote that shuts off debate and moves a measure toward final consideration. For the Senate to agree to cloture requires 60 votes — a high threshold that many Senate majorities are unable to muster on controversial votes (and, increasingly, even on relatively uncontroversial votes).
However, the filibuster cannot be used to block a budget resolution. That’s because the Budget Act sets out a specific amount of time for debate in the Senate — 50 hours. If a specific amount of debate time is enshrined in the controlling statute, the filibuster is moot. So a simple majority — not 60 votes — is all that’s required to pass a budget resolution.
Indeed, passing a budget resolution by at least 60 votes has become increasingly rare in recent years, according to CRS data. Since 1994, the Senate vote has exceeded that vote threshold just three times, either in the initial vote or on a subsequent vote in which lawmakers consider an identical House-Senate version of the resolution.
More common in recent years are votes where 51 was enough to prevail. In 2009, the Senate even passed the final budget resolution by a 48-45 margin.
“The budget resolution vote is always a partisan affair, and rarely does it gain any minority party support,” said Steve Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense.
So Lew is clearly wrong to say that “you can’t pass a budget in the Senate of the United States without 60 votes.” As a longtime senior official at OMB and other federal agencies, he should have known better.
The truth is that you need 51 votes to pass a budget. The Democrat Party currently has 53 votes in the Senate. When Obama took over, they had a filibuster-proof Senate and they could have passed ANY budget they wanted. You need to remember that just last year, Obama submitted a budget to a Senate under the control of his own party. It was such an abject disgrace that it went down 97-0 without a SINGLE Senator voting for it.
I know, I know. That was the Republicans Party’s fault, too.
So … by the way …. do high gas prices have you bummed? Are you stressing over the strain on you already overburdened wallet?
No need to worry!! The Anointed One, President Obama, is coming to save you. Can I get a “YES HE CAN! YES HE CAN!” I knew I could!!
Do you remember? It was not to long ago that the Anointed One proclaimed that just periodically checking your tire pressure will help you save money on as!
“Simple things you can do to save gas. Make sure that your tires are inflated properly. And getting regular tune ups.”
So next time your feeling down because you can’t pay those skyrocketing gas price, remember that “YES YOU CAN” … and you will … unless we elect a President who will pave the way for increasing the exploration and drilling for America’s abundant supply of fossil fuels, decrease America’s dependence on foreign oil, build “Keystone” pipe lines, and yes, RESPONSIBLY investigate alternative energy.
However, if we get four more years of nonsense and suggestions that consumers “check your tire pressure;” while Obama gives more money to companies Solyndra to flush down the toilet; then we’re pretty much screwed.
Now, let me be completely honest! For America, (as true patriotic, conservative American’s love it) to survive; we must defeat Obama and his party of pathological socialist liars in 2012. Whoever is the Republican nominee must be supported by supporters of the other candidates. And … to finish Jack Lew’s earlier interrupted sentence, unless Republicans can grow a set of balls … and rise up and hold the Democrats responsible for all of their vicious lies, this nation is doomed.
Have you forgotten already? Or … do you remember Solyndra and Obama’s enlightened administration granting them a $528 million stimulus loan despite the OMB’s warning Solyndra would go bankrupt. OMB even got the date right!
And … do you remember Beacon Power who got a $43 million loan guarantee from Obama. Well, they also went bankrupt.
Now we have Ener1, who got a $118 million grant from Obama … and guess what … they filed for bankruptcy Thursday.
Do you see a pattern emerging here? All three company were Obama bundlers or supporters! All got millions of tax payer’s dollars as Obama touted them as leaders of the new clean and green energy industry his administration will “not walk away from!” Well, they got the green and then they cleaned up … but the taxpayers got screwed!
This is the change you cool-aid drinkers voted for! Crony-capitalism! Inept and corrupt leadership! Let’s see … what else:
New home purchases fell in 2011 … making it the worst year for home sales in U.S history … despite Obama’s claims.
Obama’s new Labor Board chief is going to push union organizing rules! No surprise here!
How about the 36 Obama aides who owe $833,000 in back taxes. Tim Geithner would be so proud!
Did anyone else listen to Obama’s State of the Union speech’s key points … exactly the same as 2010 … slightly different wording. Yet no improvement … why? Because he is an arrogant, corrupt, anti-American, lead -from-behind fraud who is enjoying his many $4 million vacations and playing endless golf games at tax payer cost! No wonder he wants to raise taxes!!
Read’em and weep suckers!
And what is happening with our conservative movement now? Why is everyone ganging up on Newt Gingrich and calling him unstable, a non-conservative, and an opponent of President Reagan’s policies, etc? The truth is the Republican’s wouldn’t have been able to take back the House in the 90’s without Newt. So why is he now being trashed so vehemently? I will tell you why! It is because the republican establishment has decided it wants to have Mitt Romney, a genuine phony conservative, as its candidate.
Romney, for his part, is trying to pretend he is not part of the Republican Establishment and is doing whatever he can to smear Newt by running dishonest negative campaign ads (Oops, I mean ads his Super PAC is running!).
They even came up with a bogus video to portray Gingrich bashing Reagan!
Let’s look at some real facts, shall we:
The charge that Newt’s resigned as Speaker of the House in disgrace is a smoke screen. He did resign and pay some fines for supposedly miss-classifying a college course he taught as tax exempt. The charge was leveled at Gingrich as a last ditch effort by a political opponent Gingrich was defeating in an election. Nobody likes to remember that after Gingrich resigned … a thorough investigation by the IRS determined that Newt Gingrich actually did nothing wrong.
Two former members of Ronald Reagan’s political machine, Mark Levine and Jeffery Lord, have both gone on record as saying the assertions that Gingrich was a problem for President Reagan and not a Reaganite conservative are, simply put, CRAP! If Gingrich had been as much a problem as Romney and others portray, he would most certainly have been mentioned in Reagan’s autobiography more than once. These two guys were there! They were in the meetings! And they both say Gingrich was a strong Reagan supporter and a key team player.
If Gingrich were not, would First Lady Nancy Reagan, a lady of remarkable strength and personal integrity who strongly supported her husband, have praised Gingrich when speaking at the 1995 Goldwater Institute Dinner by saying:
“They believed that government should simply get out of the way. Ronnie and Barry fought for those principles, which, today, have been overwhelmingly embraced,” Reagan said. “So they must have done something right. Just take a look at the extraordinary men and women who make up the 104th Congress and of course its distinguished speaker, Newt Gingrich. The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and, in turn, Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.”
The House, under Gingrich’s leadership did balance the budget 4 times, reformed Welfare under Bill Clinton, and did create strong economic growth and created over 11 million jobs. Can Mitt say anything close to that?
And what about Mitt Romney? Let’s look at a few more facts:
Romney’s own adviser Norm Coleman said that they wouldn’t be appealing Obamacare entirely. Why?
In 1994, Mitt Romney did his level best to distance himself from President Reagan, calling himself an independent.
In 2002, when running for Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney clearly stated that he is not a partisan Republican and that his views were progressive.
Ron Paul is no saint in this picture either. Remember when he resigned from the Republican Party in 1987, and actually did bash President Reagan saying:
If Ronald Reagan couldn’t or wouldn’t balance the budget, which Republican leader on the horizon can we possibly expect to do so? There is no credibility left for the Republican Party as a force to reduce the size of government. That is the message of the Reagan years.
I conclude that one must look to other avenues if a successful effort is ever to be achieved in reversing America’s direction.
I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card.
I would really like to see the Republican candidates get beyond these personal attacks and negative ads, and concentrate on the issues. If you go to their respective websites, they all have plans to fix the economy, or reform the tax laws, etc. posted there. Why has no debate “monitor” asked the candidates about these plans? So Gingrich made money selling his expertise? So Romney is rich? So what? All the candidates have their flaws. There is no perfect candidate out there! Any one of these potential candidates would be better than Obama!!
Conservatives have to concentrate on one thing! Defeating Obama!!! Whichever candidate ends up winning the nomination will need the REAL SUPPORT of the other candidates and their supporters to beat Obama. If this gets too nasty, and they take their toys and go home … Obama will win re-election. In fact, I think that is what he is banking on! America, as conservative know and love it, cannot survive four more years of Obama!
I listened to Obama’s American Jobs Act speech last night and I must confess; I was impressed. It was very well written. Whoever wrote it did a brilliant job. It was well paced, full of catchy and patriotic slogans, and designed to appeal to the masses. Unfortunately, it was also total BS! It was the same old progressive liberal “song and dance” in new clothing … just like I predicted it would be. Much of it sounds so good on the surface and shallow-thinkers will tout its fairness and praise Obama for his efforts.
The plan Obama laid out Thursday night in his speech would cost nearly $450 billion and would increase and extend a payroll tax cut for workers that goes to Social Security. It also provides a tax cut to employers. You can argue that some of this will help in the short-term, but most of Obama’s proposals actually stand very little chance of ever being implemented, at least without the backing of congressional Republicans. And, that may not be very likely!
The truth is Obama is trying to set up a “win-win” scenario for his re-election campaign:
Win v.1: If Congress passes his plan, Obama will be seen as the hero who saved the day (at least until the problems in his plan become clear some time down the road). I am sure he is betting this will happen after November 2012.
Win v.2: If congress does not pass his plan, he can point to them and say, “See, I tried to do something to save the day and the republicans would not work with me. It is their fault. And in this version, the problems with his plan never truly surface.
What are the problems with his Obama’s job plan you might ask. There are plenty. First, let’s examine a few of the claims he make in his speech:
Obama claim #1: Everything in this bill will be paid for.
The Facts: Nowhere did Obama say exactly how he would pay for the measures contained in his nearly $450 billion American Jobs Act. All he said was that he would send his proposed specifics in a week to the new congressional super committee charged with finding budget savings. White House aides have suggested that the new short-term deficit spending to stimulate job creation would be paid for in the future but they did not say what would be cut or what revenues they would use. So in reality, Obama’s jobs plan is simply a “promissory note” from a president and lawmakers who will probably not be in office when the bills come due. Any future Congress could simply decide not to pay that bill. So there is no kind of guarantee his program (that clearly will increase annual deficits in the short-term) will ever be paid for in the long-term.
Obama claim #2: Everything in this proposal has been supported by both Democrats and Republicans, including many who sit here tonight.”
The facts: Obama’s proposed cut in the Social Security payroll tax would seem likely to receive significant Republican support. However, Obama proposes paying for the plan in part with tax increases that have already generated very strong Republican opposition.
Obama again proposes to end Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans (which he has defined as couples earning over $250,000 a year or people earning over $200,000 a year), saying that the wealthy need to pay “their fair share.” This should come as no surprise to anyone since it has been the liberal’s standard modus operandi for decades. In his speech, Obama even mentioned his good buddy, Warren Buffett, who according to this speech, asked Obama to remove a loop-hole that Buffett uses to avoid paying taxes so he can also “pay his fair share.” So does Warren Buffett actually have to take advantage of the loop-hole? Why is Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway, involved in a legal battle with the IRS now to avoid paying $1 billion in back taxes … if Warren Buffett so truly wants to pay his fair share? Who gets to decide what that “fair Share” is? Progressive-liberal radicals? What a bunch of Bull Shit!
I am not wealthy! I am not even upper middle class! But, even I can see the “wrong” in liberals wanting to “steal” the hard –earned money of successful people and “redistributing” it to their voters. When the government starts taking the property of its citizens in the name of some perceived and mutable notion of “fair,” then that government has just lost its right to exist!
But what are the facts surrounding the idea of the wealthy paying their fair share? The facts are that the wealthy already do pay their fair share! The top 5 percent of wage earners in this country (this includes all income, not just wages, but excludes Social Security) pay 53.25 % of all income taxes, the top 10 % pay 64.89 % of all taxes, the top 25 % pay 82.9 % of all taxes, the top 50 % pay 96.03 % of all taxes, and the top 1 percent is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50 percent.
How about the bottom 50 percent of wage earners (which, by the way, includes me)? We pay 3.97% of all income taxes. In addition, an estimated 43.4 percent of Americans do not even pay federal income tax. Shouldn’t Obama be asking for that 43.4 percent and the bottom 50 percent to pay their “fair share”?
This is why Tea Party members say no to new taxes and work to curb the government’s out-of-control spending; and why many Republicans have adamantly blocked what they view as new taxes without first making real and needed cuts in wasteful government spending. As recently as last month, House Republicans refused to go along with any deal to raise the government’s borrowing authority that included new revenues, or taxes.
Obama claim #3: The American Jobs Act will not add to the deficit.
The Facts: It simply not true that this program will not raise the deficit over the next year or two. That is because most of Obama’s envisioned spending cuts and tax increases will have to come later on down the road out of fear that, if enacted now, they will jeopardize the fragile “recovery.” Deficits are calculated over each year. The accumulation of years of deficit spending has produced a national debt headed toward $15 trillion. Maybe Obama simply meant to say that he hoped his programs would not further increase the national debt.
Obama claim #4: The American Jobs Act meets the urgent need to create jobs right away.
The Facts: Obama’s plan meets his need to make the government even bigger and more powerful. And, not all the president’s major proposals are likely to yield quick job growth if adopted. One such proposal is to set up a new national infrastructure bank to raise private capital for roads, rail, bridges, airports and waterways. Even supporters of such a bank doubt it could have much impact on jobs in the next two years because it takes time to set up. The idea will run into opposition from most conservatives because such a bank would simply give the federal government way too much power. It makes much more sense to divide money among already existing state infrastructure banks, but that is not in keeping with the socialist agenda … is it?
So how would you describe Obama’s speech? I am not a big fan of Karl Rove, but I do like how he described Obama’s speech using 12 words in a recent article on FoxNews.com. Here are just a few of them:
Presumptuous: According to Rove, during the speech Obama demanded no less than 17 times that Congress immediately pass a bill no one has seen. I did not count, but I did hear that phrase used many times.
Mind-boggling: Obama wants to again steal hundreds of billions from Social Security for another stimulus. Wait a minute … isn’t that supposed to be what the liberal democrats accuse the Tea Party of wanting to do … destroy social security?
Arrogant: Obama refused to consult with anyone about his plan in advance? Well, we all know he is pretty arrogant
Unnecessary: Yep! Should have watched a football game or Jeopardy!
Completely political: What did you expect?
How about cutting back on some government waste, redundancy, and inefficiency to pay for some of your American Jobs Act programs. Again just a few examples:
342 economic development programs
130 programs serving the disabled
130 programs serving at-risk youth
90 early childhood development programs
75 programs funding international education, cultural, and training exchange activities
72 federal programs dedicated to assuring safe water
50 homeless assistance programs
45 federal agencies conducting federal criminal investigations
Dan Gainor published this article on September 6, 2011 on FoxNews.com. It is absolutely crazy how the progressive-liberals and their mainstream media lap-dogs castigate and spew their vitriolic lies about the Tea Party and American conservatives. I think it is a sign as to just how desperate they are. Here is Dan Gainor’s article in its entirety:
Conservatives are crazy. Sometimes they’re stupid, racist or even evil. On creative occasions they’re all four – at least that’s how they’re portrayed by the American media. All that reflects the typical lefty view that right-wingers are “son of bitches” who need to be taken out, as Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa so sweetly explained. Hoffa envisions a “good fight” because his opponents must be the opposite – evil.
This election season, journalists have partnered fully with the left to depict conservatives in the most vile ways they can muster. While it’s nothing new, the sheer volume of attacks is noteworthy. What’s worse is that many are coming from supposedly legitimate news operations. . (It is fun to note this nasty attack comes just days before Obama pushes his latest “bipartisan” legislative effort.)
Every national conservative politician battles these media characterizations.
Ronald Reagan was crazy or stupid, depending on the lefty arguing it or the phases of the moon. Nancy Reagan was allegedly the power behind the throne, so she was crazy and evil.
His son, President George W. Bush, managed to be crazy, stupid and evil. (Lefties liked to depict him in Nazi regalia or as a chimp, or both. Conservatives who use identical phrasing or images for Obama are, of course, category four – racists.) Vice President Dick Cheney got the Nancy Reagan treatment – crazy and evil.
It’s almost a party game to list the top conservatives and describe how the media and left are depicting them. But it’s no game to candidates. Prominent media outlets are trying to sabotage every viable conservative opponent to Obama.
Rep. Michele Bachman, (R-Wis.), is called crazy for her gas price predictions or for just being her. Newsweek’s Aug. 15 cover story on Bachmann was called “The Queen of Rage,” complete with a cover photo of a crazy-eyed candidate. “In Iowa, where she was raised, Bachmann has become the living embodiment of the Tea Party. She and her allies have been called a maniacal gang of knife-wielding ideologues. That’s hyperbole, of course,” wrote Lois Romano. When reporters write something that vile and follow it with “that’s hyperbole,” what they really mean is “no, it’s not.”
Then there’s ESPN’s L.Z. Granderson, also a CNN contributor, who called Bachmann “crazy.” Granderson said that “the people aren’t going to vote for crazy. And she [Bachmann] still registers as crazy with a lot of independents.” But those attacks were repurposing the lefty theme that has been around for years. Crazy Mother Jones magazine called her “Bachmann (R-Crazy)” in a 2008 headline.
With Bachmann now running for president, Matt Taibbi resurrected that assault in Rolling Stone’s June 22 issue. “Bachmann is a religious zealot whose brain is a raging electrical storm of divine visions and paranoid delusions.” Taibbi summed it up by saying she’s “exactly the right kind of completely batshit crazy. Not medically crazy, not talking-to-herself-on-the-subway crazy, but grandiose crazy, late-stage Kim Jong-Il crazy.”
Then there’s stupid, a subject the old school media know all too well. Politico, the lefty publication that caters to Washington insiders, ran an Aug. 29 cover story with the headline: “Is Rick Perry dumb?” This sterling bit of journalism began with the premise that Perry is “confronting an unavoidable question: is he dumb – or just misunderestimated?” (That last bit is a dig at Bush the Younger, of course.)
This theme has been everywhere for years, enshrined even in T-shirt form as a red-white-and-blue elephant with the slogan: “Never Underestimate the Power of Stupid People in Large Numbers.”
Tune into MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” and there’s co-host Mika Brzezinski bashing the right for not hiking taxes in the debt limit negotiations. “I think the Republicans look stupid and mean. I’m sorry, this is stupid.”
It’s a common theme over at MSNBC: conservatives are stupid. “Sarah Palin Has Proven Herself To Be Profoundly Stupid,” whined “Hardball” host Chris Matthews.
If it’s evil you want, Matthews throws that term around like beads at Mardi Gras. Let’s see: Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are evil: “These people are evil in what they’re doing.” All because he thinks they’re wrong about climate change. Then Matthews bashed former Speaker Newt Gingrich as “evil” and looking “like the devil.”
The media pile on Perry as the front runner. ABC’s Jim Avila called out conservative Texans as evil, even if you didn’t quite use the word. “Some argue that, deep in the heart of Rick Perry’s Texas, there is little heart.” “Some.” That’s another journalist weasel word, allowing Avila to say what he actually feels without owning up. It’s the same theme over on the left, typically blasting the Koch brothers with the term. A 2010 Gawker headline explained it only a bit tongue-in-cheek: “Republican Billionaires Arrange Secret Meeting to Plot Evil.”
Those attacks are awful, but the scarlet letter attack in today’s world earns the “R” for racism. Matthews is good at that one too, saying Perry “could be Bull Connor with a smile.” Matthews gave the Bull Connor comparison to Perry twice. (Connor was a civil rights era racist who unleashed police dogs and turned fire hoses on protesters. He was also a Democrat.)
If you’re white, even a bogus claim of racism is almost impossible to defend against. It’s the favorite of charlatans and media hounds, and a persistent media theme since Obama first announced for president. Everybody who’s anybody – the Tea Party, Fox, the GOP and more – are all racists for daring to oppose Obama.
Even black GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain gets abused as “racist.” TV nutball pundits from foul-mouthed comedian Bill Maher to massively inked, one-time comedienne Janeane Garofalohave criticized his candidacy – supposedly designed to deflect “the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the tea party certainly.” Garofalo actually claimed Cain was being paid to fend off charges of racism against the GOP. Of course, you can’t fend off such disgusting charges. Even a lunatic like Garofalo knows that.
Because such charges get repeated dozens, hundreds or thousands of times. The examples above are just scratching the surface. We could fill newspapers with these outlandish claims, if any bothered to print such truth. Crazy, stupid, evil and racist. The four horsemen of the liberal media apocalypse this election. And every one of them has already been set loose.
This is an interesting video from Pajamas TV about that very topic. I think Sarah Palin is probably the last best hope for the Republican Party … after all, the Republicans have done so well over the last 10 years following their conventional wisdom… don’t you think? Check this video out! You can select the video quality on the left side of the player.