From Freedom Dogs...
Derek's post here indicates the possibility of a plan on part of the DFL and Dayton to shut down our state government and blame the Republicans. Yesterday, I received another letter supporting the same idea - in other words, no "negotiation" with the DFL will work.
This is the email I received. Underlining and bold are mine. [comments are also mine]
Clients and friends,
We just received fairly reliable information from the Administration that there is a good chance that the Governor's shutdown plan will include terminating payments to both health plans and health care providers for all government programs effective July 1. We believe that the decision may be that, even though eligibility for programs will continue, providers and health plans will not be paid for providing their services and coverage. The intent appears to be to have an immediate, strong impact of the shutdown to create the greatest possible pain and resulting pressure on the Legislature to resolve the dispute. [A planned attack on our legislators and the still-working people of MN - that is, Dayton will only want a tax increase - those who believe this is only on the rich will have a very pricey awakening]
Many of you would be seriously, if not fatally, damaged by an extended period of time with no payments under government programs. For this reason, we are planning to work with other health care organizations to try to plan and launch an aggressive media, grassroots and lobbying campaign directed toward legislators who are swing votes in overcoming the deadlock and to maintain as much health care program funding as possible. [So pressure the legislature to spend money we don't have; let Dayton increase taxes on MN; where will this money come from?]
We are organizing a meeting for next week and will send you an invitation and more details as soon as we can. We are also asking for data from DHS and other sources to quantify the impact of the vetoed HHS bill by county and hope to be able to share the data at the meeting so that advocacy efforts can be supported by data on the impact on each legislator's district.
If you are aware of any data or analysis on the impact of the HHS bill, please forward it to me. Also, if you have seen some effective communications messages and personal stories that you think are especially effective, please share them with me, too.
This past Monday, June 6, I was told Governor Dayton was a "no-show" at a scheduled state meeting to discuss the budget with the MN Senate. Yesterday, after hearing a panel of Republican representatives, we were told that Governor Dayton has not given his commissioners any negotiating power. They go to hearings in St. Paul but can't day or do anything.
Why does it appear that the "party of the people" is out destroy business, tax the daylights out of everyone else and hurt the very people they claim they want to help? IMO, control, control, control but to what end?
What can you do?
Support your legislators - "Hold the line!"
Write to your local paper - Dayton and his people are now playing with people's lives. There is enough money to keep these places going - Dayton simply wants more.
Stand strong legislative Republicans!
Showing posts with label idiot and corrupt liberals. Show all posts
Showing posts with label idiot and corrupt liberals. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Thursday, March 17, 2011
conservatives are better than liberals, facts...
I got into a debate the other week that turned race related and I just wanted to address this on my blog for the record. I am a generally happy person, I love my life and where I am currently. I am employed at a great "fast food" (Jimmy Johns)
restaurant where I work 5-6 days a week. I currently am about one year short of a Bachelors of Arts degree at the U of M with a double major in political science and history but I am in no rush to get back. I want to possibly move up the corporate ladder by working my ass off, you know the old-fashioned way. I do not expect the world to hand me things on a fucking silver platter but I know being involved in politics and such that its not how MUCH you know but really WHO you know. And I know some relatively powerful people who I have built up a nice stack of IOU's for the future and I have to decide when to cash them in. Is this fair how the world works? Hell no, but I already knew that. Shit I knew that at 14 when one of my classmates asked and I quote, "My dad makes $100,000 a year, thats not that much is it?". Yeah I went to private school to get a good education but in some ways I wish I had went to a public school to get a real world education. Because the world doesn't operate the way it does at OLG or Benilde-St.Margarets. It operates like it does at Normandale Community College (which I did graduate from, I do have an AA degree) and to a lesser extent, the University of Minnesota. I have started to question the validity of a college degree and I'm not the only one, everyone should not go to college, some people aren't cut out for the work. EVERYONE though should AT LEAST go to a trade school. My upper-class friends may not know this but you know a plumber/carpenter/car mechanic and other skilled "blue-collar" jobs can earn you a lot of money. You can make very good money (and im talking like 100K, 200K and above) doing those jobs. The jobs that college "prepares" you for, 40-70K usually at most. And were running out of skilled labor jobs because my generation thinks it's "beneath" them to do those jobs. But would you rather be a lawyer making 45K a year paying of law school/college loans for 15 years or a carpenter making 80K a year right out of school? Note to my generation, the world has ENOUGH lawyers. But I digress, that was a bit of a tangent, but my point still stands that I am happy with my life and in 5-10 years hope to have a nice job, a wife, and hopefully (at least) a few kids. Thats all I need to be happy, and people don't control my happiness I do. The saying "Life is 10% of what happens to you and 90% of how you deal with it" is so true. I was bored with college so I mailed it in last semester and "quit". I'm now working a minimum wage job 25-30 hours a week and frankly I'm happier than I ever was at school. I busted my ass for a month to get a $7.25 an hour job and it was so worth it. But back to my point, studies have shown that conservatives/tea-partiers are... better informed, better educated and more successful at life, are generally happier, more generous and even better in the sack than big-government advocates, liberals, progressives and any followers of the -ism (environmentalism, feminism, activism in general)
But this pales in comparison to the main point I wanted to make, that we as conservatives are, are NOT RACIST. not only are we not racist but a whole lot less than the left. To anyone who is on the right this is no surprise, to those on the left, this has to be devastating. From SITD...
social scientists usually measure traditional racism against African Americans by looking at the survey responses of white Americans only. Among whites in the latest General Social Survey (2008), only 4.5% of small-government advocates express the view that “most Blacks/African-Americans have less in-born ability to learn,” compared to 12.3% of those who favor bigger government or take a middle position expressing this racist view (Figure 2). We social scientists sometimes like to express things in relative odds, especially for small percentages. Here the odds of small government whites not expressing racist views (21-to-1 odds) is three times higher than the odds of big-government whites not being racist (7-to-1 odds).
…but that we long-abused white male small-government are, empirically, the least-racist subgroup of all, by a whopping margin:
Figure 3 shows that, among whites, Republican advocates of smaller government are even less racist (1.3% believing that blacks have less in-born ability) than the rest of the general public (11.3% expressing racist views). Thus, in 2008 Republicans who believe that the government in Washington does too much have 10 times higher odds of not expressing racist views on the in-born ability question than the rest of the population (79-to-1 odds v. 7.9-to-1 odds).
How social conservatives who aren’t necessarily small-government – stereotypically southern? Yep – still half as likely to be a racist as a typical American:
In 2008, only 5.4% of white conservative Republicans expressed racist views on the in-born ability question, compared to 10.3% of the rest of the white population.
An aberration – perhaps caused by all that messianic hopey-changey twaddle?
Nope:
Quite clearly, the legacy of Nixon’s “southern strategy” – which was never especially racist in its own right – is long dead.
The Dems’ “racism of low expectations” is, in fact, just racism.
Maybe we need some sort of outreach program to, I dunno, judge people by the contents of their hearts rather than the color of their skin.
Bite me libs, turns out the reason you call us racist so much is not because its true but you are projecting your deep-seeded racism!
restaurant where I work 5-6 days a week. I currently am about one year short of a Bachelors of Arts degree at the U of M with a double major in political science and history but I am in no rush to get back. I want to possibly move up the corporate ladder by working my ass off, you know the old-fashioned way. I do not expect the world to hand me things on a fucking silver platter but I know being involved in politics and such that its not how MUCH you know but really WHO you know. And I know some relatively powerful people who I have built up a nice stack of IOU's for the future and I have to decide when to cash them in. Is this fair how the world works? Hell no, but I already knew that. Shit I knew that at 14 when one of my classmates asked and I quote, "My dad makes $100,000 a year, thats not that much is it?". Yeah I went to private school to get a good education but in some ways I wish I had went to a public school to get a real world education. Because the world doesn't operate the way it does at OLG or Benilde-St.Margarets. It operates like it does at Normandale Community College (which I did graduate from, I do have an AA degree) and to a lesser extent, the University of Minnesota. I have started to question the validity of a college degree and I'm not the only one, everyone should not go to college, some people aren't cut out for the work. EVERYONE though should AT LEAST go to a trade school. My upper-class friends may not know this but you know a plumber/carpenter/car mechanic and other skilled "blue-collar" jobs can earn you a lot of money. You can make very good money (and im talking like 100K, 200K and above) doing those jobs. The jobs that college "prepares" you for, 40-70K usually at most. And were running out of skilled labor jobs because my generation thinks it's "beneath" them to do those jobs. But would you rather be a lawyer making 45K a year paying of law school/college loans for 15 years or a carpenter making 80K a year right out of school? Note to my generation, the world has ENOUGH lawyers. But I digress, that was a bit of a tangent, but my point still stands that I am happy with my life and in 5-10 years hope to have a nice job, a wife, and hopefully (at least) a few kids. Thats all I need to be happy, and people don't control my happiness I do. The saying "Life is 10% of what happens to you and 90% of how you deal with it" is so true. I was bored with college so I mailed it in last semester and "quit". I'm now working a minimum wage job 25-30 hours a week and frankly I'm happier than I ever was at school. I busted my ass for a month to get a $7.25 an hour job and it was so worth it. But back to my point, studies have shown that conservatives/tea-partiers are... better informed, better educated and more successful at life, are generally happier, more generous and even better in the sack than big-government advocates, liberals, progressives and any followers of the -ism (environmentalism, feminism, activism in general)
But this pales in comparison to the main point I wanted to make, that we as conservatives are, are NOT RACIST. not only are we not racist but a whole lot less than the left. To anyone who is on the right this is no surprise, to those on the left, this has to be devastating. From SITD...
social scientists usually measure traditional racism against African Americans by looking at the survey responses of white Americans only. Among whites in the latest General Social Survey (2008), only 4.5% of small-government advocates express the view that “most Blacks/African-Americans have less in-born ability to learn,” compared to 12.3% of those who favor bigger government or take a middle position expressing this racist view (Figure 2). We social scientists sometimes like to express things in relative odds, especially for small percentages. Here the odds of small government whites not expressing racist views (21-to-1 odds) is three times higher than the odds of big-government whites not being racist (7-to-1 odds).
…but that we long-abused white male small-government are, empirically, the least-racist subgroup of all, by a whopping margin:
Figure 3 shows that, among whites, Republican advocates of smaller government are even less racist (1.3% believing that blacks have less in-born ability) than the rest of the general public (11.3% expressing racist views). Thus, in 2008 Republicans who believe that the government in Washington does too much have 10 times higher odds of not expressing racist views on the in-born ability question than the rest of the population (79-to-1 odds v. 7.9-to-1 odds).
How social conservatives who aren’t necessarily small-government – stereotypically southern? Yep – still half as likely to be a racist as a typical American:
In 2008, only 5.4% of white conservative Republicans expressed racist views on the in-born ability question, compared to 10.3% of the rest of the white population.
An aberration – perhaps caused by all that messianic hopey-changey twaddle?
Nope:
Quite clearly, the legacy of Nixon’s “southern strategy” – which was never especially racist in its own right – is long dead.
The Dems’ “racism of low expectations” is, in fact, just racism.
Maybe we need some sort of outreach program to, I dunno, judge people by the contents of their hearts rather than the color of their skin.
Bite me libs, turns out the reason you call us racist so much is not because its true but you are projecting your deep-seeded racism!
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Monday, September 13, 2010
You have GOT to be KIDDING me...
I'm pretty sure when the other side is trying to tap into a pop tween idol to get kids motivated to vote in these elections that you have lost, on so many levels I don't know where to begin. This article, swear to God, is from Politico. But if you had shown this to me I would have guessed it was from the Onion.
Internet-savvy types know that teen heartthrob Justin Bieber pretty much rules the web. Just last week, rumor spread that Bieber’s fan base was so active on Twitter that the microblogging website has servers dedicated just to him. Twitter didn’t confirm, but they didn’t deny it, either.
The takeaway? If you're trying to get a message to go viral, your success rate will surely be higher if you can somehow tie-in the Biebs.
So that’s just what Campus Progress, the college spinoff of the Center for American Progress, decided to do to get people to vote in the midterms.
The organization is highlighting a submission to its VoteAgain2010 video contest that argues, while Bieber can't vote in our midterms (he's both too young and too Canadian), shouldn't you?
"This isn't your standard election year video of celebrities asking you to vote," the ad says. "It's us, asking you to vote for celebrities who can't, celebrities like Justin Bieber. Bieber's too young to vote, yet whomever we elect in the 2010 midterm elections will impact his future and ours. ... So tell your parents, your grandparents, your Facebook friends ... If they won't do it for you, ask them to do it for Bieber." (Click below to watch.)
ED: Try not to laugh too hard, but they are trying to be serious here... I think...
"We're trying to leverage Bieber fever," Campus Progress's Sara Haile-Mariam told POLITICO. "Most of his fans are 12 years old – we acknowledge that." Still, they hope that Bieber fans will “tell their parents. ... The hope is to create something that goes viral and gets young people to be aware of the election."
Of course, Haile-Mariam admits that part of the motivation was less purely political. "We consider ourselves big Bieber fans," she confessed, adding that they hope Bieber will give some link love to
their project via his Twitter page (and his over 5 million followers).
But what if — gasp! — Bieber could vote and choose to vote ... Republican?!? How would that sit with the progressive group?
"That would actually be kind of hilarious," said Campus Progress's Katie Andriulli.
"We would still love Bieber if he was a conservative," said Haile-Mariam. "But he's young...there's still hope."
Sometimes you just have to laugh, otherwise you would cry, here are some of the gem comments...
So kids that CAN vote should because Bieber can't? Is that the pitch? So, a college freshman should vote because this high school freshman can't? Whoa, are kids today really stupid enough to fall for that lame attempt? Usually, by age 18, kids today, even kids educated in our public schools are smarter than that.
Only an idiot would vote for someone because their 12 year old told them to. "Do it for Bieber." No, make that an imbecile.
Exploiting the underaged for political gain. Sounds like the perfect strategy for the Democrats being as how no intelligent voter (read: 18 and up) would ever pay attention to this person and the only segment of the population stupid enough to care are 12-14 year old girls. Oh wait, another bio talent celebrity bring marketed into a position of super-stardom, and loved only by those who don't pay taxes and live off their parents. Priceless.
Desparation takes many forms...
So let me understand this... the Democrats want teenagers (who yet to have a clue about anything IMPORTANT) to tell their parents what to do and how to vote because of some kid named Justin Bieber, a 16 year old Canadian singing sensation, who owns and drives a $250K Lamborghini Roadster and makes millions of dollars? Is the person they want to YOU to connect with? I thought the Democrats (the President in particular) have been telling us that rich people suck, and that the little people are the ones who matter most? It's a bizarre gasp on the DNC's part. People don't care about Justin Bieber, but what they care about is how the taxes they pay keep going up (Federally, State wide and locally) and they are seeing less and less for their contributions. The bottom 40 million tax payers get all their money back and don't pay taxes, so I guess this Administration is now panicked and needs to pick up a Canadian spokesperson because among the 280 million Americans they can't find someone else. How incredibly desperate.
Internet-savvy types know that teen heartthrob Justin Bieber pretty much rules the web. Just last week, rumor spread that Bieber’s fan base was so active on Twitter that the microblogging website has servers dedicated just to him. Twitter didn’t confirm, but they didn’t deny it, either.
The takeaway? If you're trying to get a message to go viral, your success rate will surely be higher if you can somehow tie-in the Biebs.
So that’s just what Campus Progress, the college spinoff of the Center for American Progress, decided to do to get people to vote in the midterms.
The organization is highlighting a submission to its VoteAgain2010 video contest that argues, while Bieber can't vote in our midterms (he's both too young and too Canadian), shouldn't you?
"This isn't your standard election year video of celebrities asking you to vote," the ad says. "It's us, asking you to vote for celebrities who can't, celebrities like Justin Bieber. Bieber's too young to vote, yet whomever we elect in the 2010 midterm elections will impact his future and ours. ... So tell your parents, your grandparents, your Facebook friends ... If they won't do it for you, ask them to do it for Bieber." (Click below to watch.)
ED: Try not to laugh too hard, but they are trying to be serious here... I think...
"We're trying to leverage Bieber fever," Campus Progress's Sara Haile-Mariam told POLITICO. "Most of his fans are 12 years old – we acknowledge that." Still, they hope that Bieber fans will “tell their parents. ... The hope is to create something that goes viral and gets young people to be aware of the election."
Of course, Haile-Mariam admits that part of the motivation was less purely political. "We consider ourselves big Bieber fans," she confessed, adding that they hope Bieber will give some link love to
their project via his Twitter page (and his over 5 million followers).
But what if — gasp! — Bieber could vote and choose to vote ... Republican?!? How would that sit with the progressive group?
"That would actually be kind of hilarious," said Campus Progress's Katie Andriulli.
"We would still love Bieber if he was a conservative," said Haile-Mariam. "But he's young...there's still hope."
Sometimes you just have to laugh, otherwise you would cry, here are some of the gem comments...
So kids that CAN vote should because Bieber can't? Is that the pitch? So, a college freshman should vote because this high school freshman can't? Whoa, are kids today really stupid enough to fall for that lame attempt? Usually, by age 18, kids today, even kids educated in our public schools are smarter than that.
Only an idiot would vote for someone because their 12 year old told them to. "Do it for Bieber." No, make that an imbecile.
Exploiting the underaged for political gain. Sounds like the perfect strategy for the Democrats being as how no intelligent voter (read: 18 and up) would ever pay attention to this person and the only segment of the population stupid enough to care are 12-14 year old girls. Oh wait, another bio talent celebrity bring marketed into a position of super-stardom, and loved only by those who don't pay taxes and live off their parents. Priceless.
Desparation takes many forms...
So let me understand this... the Democrats want teenagers (who yet to have a clue about anything IMPORTANT) to tell their parents what to do and how to vote because of some kid named Justin Bieber, a 16 year old Canadian singing sensation, who owns and drives a $250K Lamborghini Roadster and makes millions of dollars? Is the person they want to YOU to connect with? I thought the Democrats (the President in particular) have been telling us that rich people suck, and that the little people are the ones who matter most? It's a bizarre gasp on the DNC's part. People don't care about Justin Bieber, but what they care about is how the taxes they pay keep going up (Federally, State wide and locally) and they are seeing less and less for their contributions. The bottom 40 million tax payers get all their money back and don't pay taxes, so I guess this Administration is now panicked and needs to pick up a Canadian spokesperson because among the 280 million Americans they can't find someone else. How incredibly desperate.
Monday, August 23, 2010
What do you call a conservative beating a liberal in a debate?
Simple, a racist. Listen to this crazy ass logic done by someone on a lefty blog named Alec Timmerman...
It goes like this: You say something completely and obviously racist, even if you aren't a racist-->We call you on the racist thing you said--> you refuse to examine your racist statements and make the lame excuse that the left will just call everything you said racist.
Obama may have done a lot of things you don't like. That is great to discuss. However, NOTHING he has done is unprecendented. Nothing he has done is socialist or communist or traitorous. The only unprecedented thing Obama has done as a President is be black. You say a lot of racist things Ben, even though you may not be a racist yourself.
First off I, to my knowledge, have not said anything racist about Obama unless you consider saying he sucks is somehow racist. Obama has done the stimulus package and healthcare "reform" those are pretty unprecedented things Alec. I want to know about the "completely and obviously racist" statements I've made. Behold the perfect example of liberal logic (or lackthereof). Go ahead and search my blog and my comments, I challenge you. You have made a serious allegation with little to no factual basis.
It goes like this: You say something completely and obviously racist, even if you aren't a racist-->We call you on the racist thing you said--> you refuse to examine your racist statements and make the lame excuse that the left will just call everything you said racist.
Obama may have done a lot of things you don't like. That is great to discuss. However, NOTHING he has done is unprecendented. Nothing he has done is socialist or communist or traitorous. The only unprecedented thing Obama has done as a President is be black. You say a lot of racist things Ben, even though you may not be a racist yourself.
First off I, to my knowledge, have not said anything racist about Obama unless you consider saying he sucks is somehow racist. Obama has done the stimulus package and healthcare "reform" those are pretty unprecedented things Alec. I want to know about the "completely and obviously racist" statements I've made. Behold the perfect example of liberal logic (or lackthereof). Go ahead and search my blog and my comments, I challenge you. You have made a serious allegation with little to no factual basis.
Monday, August 09, 2010
Michelle Obama's trip, that no one in the MSM bothered to cover...
Can you imagine if Laura Bush, Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan did anything close to this? And if they did the media would be outraged (and I would be with them, honestly). But since Queen Michelle "Marie Antionette" Obama took her insanely lavish vacation its okay. Because she is black and the wife of a black President and could get away with murder if she so pleased. The article from the NY Post, done well by a liberal.
A foolish trip
Michelle Obama's PR disaster
The first lady's well-publicized, expensive vacation in southern Spain last week was a PR gift to her husband's opposition. After all, we're in the middle of a major recession, with many Americans suffering terribly. President Obama himself, in discussing American economic woes with George Stephanopolous in January, said, "Everybody's going to have to [sacrifice]. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game."
"Sacrifice for thee but not for me" is not a great campaign slogan. Plus, Obama's worst political weakness has been with white-working class voters, who've viewed him with suspicion at least since the 2008 primaries. Mrs. Obama's jaunt through an expensive resort town in a one-shouldered Jean Paul Gaultier top won't help on that front.
It also plays into a favorite right-wing attack: branding Democrats as elitists who can't relate to average Americans' struggles.
In 2004, Citizens United ran a 30-second ad that called the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, "another rich liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people." And no one will forget the famous wind-surfing ad.
In 2008, Obama himself fed it with his comment about voters' "clinging to guns and religion." Media elements used "Joe the Plumber" to "prove" that the candidate hated the middle class. Meanwhile, John McCain -- whose father and grandfather were Navy admirals -- managed to avoid this tarnish despite being married to an heiress worth more than $100 million. George W. Bush, the Ivy-educated scion of a wealthy political family, managed to come off as just plain folks -- despite once joking to rich supporters, "Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base." Man of the people, indeed. Yet the facts don't matter much. Earlier this year, Sean Hannity branded Obama as an elitist for putting Dijon mustard ("a very special condiment") on his burger. (The monitors at Media Matters dubbed it "Dijon Derangement Syndrome.") The Drudge Report recently linked to a story about Michelle Obama's commissioning a London designer to make her a coat. Clearly, no issue is too trivial to support the "Obama doesn't care about you" meme. But if the right will try to use mustard as a political weapon, it's foolish to hand them a lavish foreign vacation, too. Yes, the initial reports of Michelle Obama's traveling with a 40-person posse were wrong; it's actually two friends and four of their daughters, a couple of aides and advance staff members. But at this point, it hardly matters; the damage has been done. Better to take a pointer from Laura Bush -- who, as first lady, continued her 15-year tradition of vacationing for a week with four girlfriends at Washington State's Olympic National Park, where they stayed in the Lake Crescent Lodge and went hiking. Some argue that Michelle should be able to travel wherever she wants if she's paying for it herself. This is naive. She is the first lady at a time when Americans are experiencing great economic pain. There are endless great locations here at home that she could put on the map with a visit -- American hotels and restaurants that would be grateful for the business generated by such a high-profile visitor. If it's a huge sacrifice for her, so be it. Sacrifice is actually a noble trait, last I checked. Plus, if she keeps this up, she will be able to vacation anywhere she wants in about two years.
And now everyone the comments...
It also plays into a favorite right-wing attack: branding Democrats as elitists who can't relate to average Americans' struggles.
Well, the reason rightwingers choose this "attack" is because it's true. Democrats talk the talk about the little guy, but they certainly don't walk the walk. Sure they throw working people a few bones, but this is done in the hopes people don't notice how much money Democrats are shoving into their pockets. Democrats are elitists and snobs at heart and it's the reason the Hollywood set favors them over Republicans. Michelle Obama shows her arrogance, because she thought she wouldn't be called on this trip, because she knows Democrats get a pass by the so-called "mainstream news media". She may have miscalculated this time.
Kristin still seems to be blinkered as to why this is so grating to so many Americans. This wasn't a one-off moment of indulgence, this is their MO. The Spanish fly-over was Michelle's SEVENTH summer vacation, from which she had to hurry home to prepare for her EIGHTH summer vacation. And, oh dear, will it conflict with those star-studded Wednesday night galas at the White House? Will her daily hectoring of Americans about what they eat interfere with her ice cream runs? Initially the galas, jaunts, and midnight French fry requests were billed as one-time indulgences, but it's become glaringly apparent that this is the norm at Chez Obama. Personally, I don't care if they want to fawn over Spain as it crashes and burns beneath the weight of it's bloated nanny state, and I don't care if they eat burgers until their arteries turn to glass -- I just don't want to pay for Michelle's delusions of grandeur or listen to either of them lecturing the rest of us on the evils of capitalism. Apparently, the high life is only contemptible if you earned the money to pay for it yourself. If you live like a cheap segment of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous on the backs of taxpayers struggling to make ends meet -- no problem!
And that's all for tonight folks, check back tomorrow for my DFL governors primary prediction before the exit polls are released.
A foolish trip
Michelle Obama's PR disaster
The first lady's well-publicized, expensive vacation in southern Spain last week was a PR gift to her husband's opposition. After all, we're in the middle of a major recession, with many Americans suffering terribly. President Obama himself, in discussing American economic woes with George Stephanopolous in January, said, "Everybody's going to have to [sacrifice]. Everybody's going to have to have some skin in the game."
"Sacrifice for thee but not for me" is not a great campaign slogan. Plus, Obama's worst political weakness has been with white-working class voters, who've viewed him with suspicion at least since the 2008 primaries. Mrs. Obama's jaunt through an expensive resort town in a one-shouldered Jean Paul Gaultier top won't help on that front.
It also plays into a favorite right-wing attack: branding Democrats as elitists who can't relate to average Americans' struggles.
In 2004, Citizens United ran a 30-second ad that called the Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, "another rich liberal elitist from Massachusetts who claims he's a man of the people." And no one will forget the famous wind-surfing ad.
In 2008, Obama himself fed it with his comment about voters' "clinging to guns and religion." Media elements used "Joe the Plumber" to "prove" that the candidate hated the middle class. Meanwhile, John McCain -- whose father and grandfather were Navy admirals -- managed to avoid this tarnish despite being married to an heiress worth more than $100 million. George W. Bush, the Ivy-educated scion of a wealthy political family, managed to come off as just plain folks -- despite once joking to rich supporters, "Here we have the haves and the have mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base." Man of the people, indeed. Yet the facts don't matter much. Earlier this year, Sean Hannity branded Obama as an elitist for putting Dijon mustard ("a very special condiment") on his burger. (The monitors at Media Matters dubbed it "Dijon Derangement Syndrome.") The Drudge Report recently linked to a story about Michelle Obama's commissioning a London designer to make her a coat. Clearly, no issue is too trivial to support the "Obama doesn't care about you" meme. But if the right will try to use mustard as a political weapon, it's foolish to hand them a lavish foreign vacation, too. Yes, the initial reports of Michelle Obama's traveling with a 40-person posse were wrong; it's actually two friends and four of their daughters, a couple of aides and advance staff members. But at this point, it hardly matters; the damage has been done. Better to take a pointer from Laura Bush -- who, as first lady, continued her 15-year tradition of vacationing for a week with four girlfriends at Washington State's Olympic National Park, where they stayed in the Lake Crescent Lodge and went hiking. Some argue that Michelle should be able to travel wherever she wants if she's paying for it herself. This is naive. She is the first lady at a time when Americans are experiencing great economic pain. There are endless great locations here at home that she could put on the map with a visit -- American hotels and restaurants that would be grateful for the business generated by such a high-profile visitor. If it's a huge sacrifice for her, so be it. Sacrifice is actually a noble trait, last I checked. Plus, if she keeps this up, she will be able to vacation anywhere she wants in about two years.
And now everyone the comments...
It also plays into a favorite right-wing attack: branding Democrats as elitists who can't relate to average Americans' struggles.
Well, the reason rightwingers choose this "attack" is because it's true. Democrats talk the talk about the little guy, but they certainly don't walk the walk. Sure they throw working people a few bones, but this is done in the hopes people don't notice how much money Democrats are shoving into their pockets. Democrats are elitists and snobs at heart and it's the reason the Hollywood set favors them over Republicans. Michelle Obama shows her arrogance, because she thought she wouldn't be called on this trip, because she knows Democrats get a pass by the so-called "mainstream news media". She may have miscalculated this time.
Kristin still seems to be blinkered as to why this is so grating to so many Americans. This wasn't a one-off moment of indulgence, this is their MO. The Spanish fly-over was Michelle's SEVENTH summer vacation, from which she had to hurry home to prepare for her EIGHTH summer vacation. And, oh dear, will it conflict with those star-studded Wednesday night galas at the White House? Will her daily hectoring of Americans about what they eat interfere with her ice cream runs? Initially the galas, jaunts, and midnight French fry requests were billed as one-time indulgences, but it's become glaringly apparent that this is the norm at Chez Obama. Personally, I don't care if they want to fawn over Spain as it crashes and burns beneath the weight of it's bloated nanny state, and I don't care if they eat burgers until their arteries turn to glass -- I just don't want to pay for Michelle's delusions of grandeur or listen to either of them lecturing the rest of us on the evils of capitalism. Apparently, the high life is only contemptible if you earned the money to pay for it yourself. If you live like a cheap segment of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous on the backs of taxpayers struggling to make ends meet -- no problem!
And that's all for tonight folks, check back tomorrow for my DFL governors primary prediction before the exit polls are released.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
This is where we are headed with a big government people...
At first I kind of laughed at this story, then I felt sad for the kid, and finally I got furious because lets face it, this is America (for now at least) and shit like this SHOULDN'T HAPPEN HERE BUT IT DOES. In Portland, Oregon health insepectors shut down a 7 year olds lemonade stand. Man if some health inspector tried to do that to me or my kid I would have told him to take his badge and shove it up his ass. And if he didn't leave my property I would have gladly done it for him. Good God what has happened to this great country where a kid can't open up a lemonade stand without a small business license (that costs $120). Here's the infuriating and insane story because I need to go punch a wall now...
It's hardly unusual to hear small-business owners gripe about licensing requirements or complain that heavy-handed regulations are driving them into the red. So when Multnomah County shut down an enterprise last week for operating without a license, you might just sigh and say, there they go again.
Except this entrepreneur was a 7-year-old named Julie Murphy. Her business was a lemonade stand at the Last Thursday monthly art fair in Northeast Portland. The government regulation she violated? Failing to get a $120 temporary restaurant license. Turns out that kids' lemonade stands -- those constants of summertime -- are supposed to get a permit in Oregon, particularly at big events that happen to be patrolled regularly by county health inspectors. "I understand the reason behind what they're doing and it's a neighborhood event, and they're trying to generate revenue," said Jon Kawaguchi, environmental health supervisor for the Multnomah County Health Department. "But we still need to put the public's health first." Julie had become enamored of the idea of having a stand after watching an episode of cartoon pig Olivia running one, said her mother, Maria Fife. The two live in Oregon City, but Fife knew her daughter would get few customers if she set up her stand at home. Plus, Fife had just attended Last Thursday along Portland's Northeast Alberta Street for the first time and loved the friendly feel and the diversity of the grass-roots event. She put the two things together and promised to take her daughter in July. The girl worked on a sign, coloring in the letters and decorating it with a drawing of a person saying "Yummy." She made a list of supplies. Then, with gallons of bottled water and packets of Kool-Aid, they drove up last Thursday with a friend and her daughter. They loaded a wheelbarrow that Julie steered to the corner of Northeast 26th and Alberta and settled into a space between a painter and a couple who sold handmade bags and kids' clothing. Even before her daughter had finished making the first batch of lemonade, a man walked up to buy a 50-cent cup. "They wanted to support a little 7-year-old to earn a little extra summer loot," she said. "People know what's going on." Even so, Julie was careful about making the lemonade, cleaning her hands with hand sanitizer, using a scoop for the bagged ice and keeping everything covered when it wasn't in use, Fife said. After 20 minutes, a "lady with a clipboard" came over and asked for their license. When Fife explained they didn't have one, the woman told them they would need to leave or possibly face a $500 fine. Surprised, Fife started to pack up. The people staffing the booths next to them encouraged the two to stay, telling them the inspectors had no right to kick them out of the neighborhood gathering. They also suggested that they give away the lemonade and accept donations instead and one of them made an announcement to the crowd to support the lemonade stand.
That's when business really picked up -- and two inspectors came back, Fife said. Julie started crying, while her mother packed up and others confronted the inspectors. "It was a very big scene," Fife said.
Editorial:(so they figure out a way to get around the "law" and they are bullied to shut it down. Don't you love our new government and how it operates?)
Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division. But county inspectors are unlikely to go after kids selling lemonade on their front lawn unless, he conceded, their front lawn happens to be on Alberta Street during Last Thursday. "When you go to a public event and set up shop, you're suddenly engaging in commerce," he said. "The fact that you're small-scale I don't think is relevant." Kawaguchi, who oversees the two county inspectors involved, said they must be fair and consistent in their monitoring, no matter the age of the person. "Our role is to protect the public," he said. The county's shutdown of the lemonade stand was publicized by Michael Franklin, the man at the booth next to Fife and her daughter. Franklin contributes to the Bottom Up Radio Network, an online anarchist site, and interviewed Fife for his show. Franklin is also organizing a "Lemonade Revolt" for Last Thursday in August. He's calling on anarchists, neighbors and others to come early for the event and grab space for lemonade stands on Alberta between Northeast 25th and Northeast 26th.
(probably the only time in my life I will support something a self-proclaimed anarchist does)
As for Julie, the 7-year-old still tells her mother "it was a bad day." When she complains about the health inspector, Fife reminds her that the woman was just doing her job. She also promised to help her try again -- at an upcoming neighborhood garage sale.
(No she was being a bitch, if I was her boss I'd fire her ass for being retarded and making a 7 year old girl feel miserable for doing NOTHING WRONG)
While Fife said she does see the need for some food safety regulation, she thinks the county went too far in trying to control events as unstructured as Last Thursday. "As far as Last Thursday is concerned, people know when they are coming there that it's more or less a free-for-all," she said. "It's gotten to the point where they need to be in all of our decisions. They don't trust us to make good choices on our own."
And as you know it's a habit of mine to check out the comments of these articles, here are a few...
I'm a liberal, and I think the shutdown was ridiculous. It's not a liberal-conservative thing; it's a common-sense vs. bureaucracy thing. I know that when I buy lemonade (or fresh-picked berries, or cookies) from the kids who set up stands in my neighborhood that I can't guarantee that everything's 100% sanitary, but I'm willing to take a slight risk. That's my choice, and I wouldn't sue the city if I got sick!
Any food cart that's more permanent than a three-hour event, or that handles meat or more complicated food -- they should be licensed. But temporary, kid-run lemonade stands? Sheesh.
Of course the conservative blabbermouths will have a field day setting up this shutdown as a false example of "liberal values" -- blah. Anyone who uses this thing as a reason to "vote Tea Party" -- which wants to restrict all sorts of things -- is deluded. Last Thursday is a pretty freewheeling liberal-hipster event, and the other booths wanted her to stay.
Kawaguchi is a PIECE OF GARBAGE. And all you liberals trying to rob a freaking 7 year old from making a little money. Go ask your 7 year old for $120 and it's like asking them for a million dollars. She was maybe going to make $50 or so and I guarantee her mom would have helped her spend it wisely.You can't even donate used toys anymore, or bring homemade cookies to school. What a shame. Let the little girl sell her lemonade.
With all these comments you'd think no one would agree with this moronic decision. Ah but you would be sadly wrong...
And some commenter restores sanity to the thread by laying this nice post down...
Another good response and another one here (I promise I'm done after this)
You are wrong. This is a story about the natural consequence of centralized planning. The consequences may be unintended but they are natural and unavoidable consequences none the less. Why do you hate freedom? Let people buy what they want from whom they want. If you want EXPERTS to make all your decisions let them but let the rest of us be responsible individuals.
It's hardly unusual to hear small-business owners gripe about licensing requirements or complain that heavy-handed regulations are driving them into the red. So when Multnomah County shut down an enterprise last week for operating without a license, you might just sigh and say, there they go again.
Except this entrepreneur was a 7-year-old named Julie Murphy. Her business was a lemonade stand at the Last Thursday monthly art fair in Northeast Portland. The government regulation she violated? Failing to get a $120 temporary restaurant license. Turns out that kids' lemonade stands -- those constants of summertime -- are supposed to get a permit in Oregon, particularly at big events that happen to be patrolled regularly by county health inspectors. "I understand the reason behind what they're doing and it's a neighborhood event, and they're trying to generate revenue," said Jon Kawaguchi, environmental health supervisor for the Multnomah County Health Department. "But we still need to put the public's health first." Julie had become enamored of the idea of having a stand after watching an episode of cartoon pig Olivia running one, said her mother, Maria Fife. The two live in Oregon City, but Fife knew her daughter would get few customers if she set up her stand at home. Plus, Fife had just attended Last Thursday along Portland's Northeast Alberta Street for the first time and loved the friendly feel and the diversity of the grass-roots event. She put the two things together and promised to take her daughter in July. The girl worked on a sign, coloring in the letters and decorating it with a drawing of a person saying "Yummy." She made a list of supplies. Then, with gallons of bottled water and packets of Kool-Aid, they drove up last Thursday with a friend and her daughter. They loaded a wheelbarrow that Julie steered to the corner of Northeast 26th and Alberta and settled into a space between a painter and a couple who sold handmade bags and kids' clothing. Even before her daughter had finished making the first batch of lemonade, a man walked up to buy a 50-cent cup. "They wanted to support a little 7-year-old to earn a little extra summer loot," she said. "People know what's going on." Even so, Julie was careful about making the lemonade, cleaning her hands with hand sanitizer, using a scoop for the bagged ice and keeping everything covered when it wasn't in use, Fife said. After 20 minutes, a "lady with a clipboard" came over and asked for their license. When Fife explained they didn't have one, the woman told them they would need to leave or possibly face a $500 fine. Surprised, Fife started to pack up. The people staffing the booths next to them encouraged the two to stay, telling them the inspectors had no right to kick them out of the neighborhood gathering. They also suggested that they give away the lemonade and accept donations instead and one of them made an announcement to the crowd to support the lemonade stand.
That's when business really picked up -- and two inspectors came back, Fife said. Julie started crying, while her mother packed up and others confronted the inspectors. "It was a very big scene," Fife said.
Editorial:(so they figure out a way to get around the "law" and they are bullied to shut it down. Don't you love our new government and how it operates?)
Technically, any lemonade stand -- even one on your front lawn -- must be licensed under state law, said Eric Pippert, the food-borne illness prevention program manager for the state's public health division. But county inspectors are unlikely to go after kids selling lemonade on their front lawn unless, he conceded, their front lawn happens to be on Alberta Street during Last Thursday. "When you go to a public event and set up shop, you're suddenly engaging in commerce," he said. "The fact that you're small-scale I don't think is relevant." Kawaguchi, who oversees the two county inspectors involved, said they must be fair and consistent in their monitoring, no matter the age of the person. "Our role is to protect the public," he said. The county's shutdown of the lemonade stand was publicized by Michael Franklin, the man at the booth next to Fife and her daughter. Franklin contributes to the Bottom Up Radio Network, an online anarchist site, and interviewed Fife for his show. Franklin is also organizing a "Lemonade Revolt" for Last Thursday in August. He's calling on anarchists, neighbors and others to come early for the event and grab space for lemonade stands on Alberta between Northeast 25th and Northeast 26th.
(probably the only time in my life I will support something a self-proclaimed anarchist does)
As for Julie, the 7-year-old still tells her mother "it was a bad day." When she complains about the health inspector, Fife reminds her that the woman was just doing her job. She also promised to help her try again -- at an upcoming neighborhood garage sale.
(No she was being a bitch, if I was her boss I'd fire her ass for being retarded and making a 7 year old girl feel miserable for doing NOTHING WRONG)
While Fife said she does see the need for some food safety regulation, she thinks the county went too far in trying to control events as unstructured as Last Thursday. "As far as Last Thursday is concerned, people know when they are coming there that it's more or less a free-for-all," she said. "It's gotten to the point where they need to be in all of our decisions. They don't trust us to make good choices on our own."
And as you know it's a habit of mine to check out the comments of these articles, here are a few...
I'm a liberal, and I think the shutdown was ridiculous. It's not a liberal-conservative thing; it's a common-sense vs. bureaucracy thing. I know that when I buy lemonade (or fresh-picked berries, or cookies) from the kids who set up stands in my neighborhood that I can't guarantee that everything's 100% sanitary, but I'm willing to take a slight risk. That's my choice, and I wouldn't sue the city if I got sick!
Any food cart that's more permanent than a three-hour event, or that handles meat or more complicated food -- they should be licensed. But temporary, kid-run lemonade stands? Sheesh.
Of course the conservative blabbermouths will have a field day setting up this shutdown as a false example of "liberal values" -- blah. Anyone who uses this thing as a reason to "vote Tea Party" -- which wants to restrict all sorts of things -- is deluded. Last Thursday is a pretty freewheeling liberal-hipster event, and the other booths wanted her to stay.
Kawaguchi is a PIECE OF GARBAGE. And all you liberals trying to rob a freaking 7 year old from making a little money. Go ask your 7 year old for $120 and it's like asking them for a million dollars. She was maybe going to make $50 or so and I guarantee her mom would have helped her spend it wisely.You can't even donate used toys anymore, or bring homemade cookies to school. What a shame. Let the little girl sell her lemonade.
With all these comments you'd think no one would agree with this moronic decision. Ah but you would be sadly wrong...
And some commenter restores sanity to the thread by laying this nice post down...
Another good response and another one here (I promise I'm done after this)
You are wrong. This is a story about the natural consequence of centralized planning. The consequences may be unintended but they are natural and unavoidable consequences none the less. Why do you hate freedom? Let people buy what they want from whom they want. If you want EXPERTS to make all your decisions let them but let the rest of us be responsible individuals.
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Dems are scared, and pussies...
Honestly if I had not come across this article I would not have believed it. This is shit you cannot make up and speaks to what liberals think of the average american in today's political culture. This is the NYT people, not the Journal or Newsmax.com
And as you all know I LOVE the comment section of these things, so check out these gems.
BEL AIR, Md. — The reception that Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., a Democrat, received here one night last week as he faced a small group of constituents was far more pleasant than his encounters during a Congressional recess last summer.
Then, he was hanged in effigy by protesters. This time, a round of applause was followed by a glass of chilled wine, a plate of crackers and crudités as he mingled with an invitation-only audience at the Point Breeze Credit Union, a vastly different scene than last year’s wide-open televised free-for-alls.
The sentiment that fueled the rage during those Congressional forums is still alive in the electorate. But the opportunities for voters to openly express their displeasure, or angrily vent as video cameras roll, have been harder to come by in this election year.
If the time-honored tradition of the political meeting is not quite dead, it seems to be teetering closer to extinction. Of the 255 Democrats who make up the majority in the House, only a handful held town-hall-style forums as legislators spent last week at home in their districts.
It was no scheduling accident.
With images of overheated, finger-waving crowds still seared into their minds from the discontent of last August, many Democrats heeded the advice of party leaders and tried to avoid unscripted question-and-answer sessions. The recommendations were clear: hold events in controlled settings — a bank or credit union, for example — or tour local businesses or participate in community service projects.
And to reach thousands of constituents at a time, without the worry of being snared in an angry confrontation with voters, more lawmakers are also taking part in a fast-growing trend: the telephone town meeting, where chances are remote that a testy exchange will wind up on YouTube.
God forbid they face dissent, because everyone knows its the highest form of patriotism, unless conservatives do it...
For incumbents of both parties facing challenging re-election bids, few things receive more scrutiny than how, when and where they interact with voters. Many members of Congress err on the side of being visible, but not too visible, and make only a few public appearances while they are back in their districts.
In other words they are SCARED :)
In New Hampshire, where open political meetings are deeply ingrained in the state’s traditions, Representative Carol Shea-Porter’s campaign Web site had this message for visitors: “No upcoming events scheduled. Please visit us again soon!”
Note to anyone who is represented by her, please visit her (peacefully of course) at her office. at any of these 3 locations...
Washington D.C. Office
1330 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
p. (202) 225-5456
f. (202) 225-5822Dover Office
104 Washington Street
Dover, NH 03820
p. (603) 743-4813
f. (603) 743-5956Manchester Office
33 Lowell Street
Manchester, NH 03101
p. (603) 641-9536
f. (603) 641-9561
Ms. Shea-Porter, a Democrat, attended a state convention of letter carriers on Saturday, but she did not hold a town-hall-style meeting during the Congressional recess. In 2006, when she was an underdog candidate for the House, she often showed up at the meetings of her Republican rival, Representative Jeb Bradley, to question him about Iraq.
so basically she can dish it out but can't take it...
In Iowa, where voters also are accustomed to coming face to face with elected officials,Representative Leonard L. Boswell, a Democrat, provided few opportunities for voters to see him last week. His itinerary included a groundbreaking for a new law enforcement center and a renaming ceremony for a Des Moines post office.
In Maryland, where Mr. Kratovil endured considerable heckling last year over the health care legislation, which he ultimately opposed, he did not hold any large gatherings with voters. After returning from a visit to Afghanistan, he held two events with veterans before arriving at an evening discussion here at the credit union in Bel Air, north of Baltimore.
“It’s dramatically different this break than it was in August of last year,” Mr. Kratovil said in an interview after he finished speaking about financial regulatory legislation. “At town halls, there was a group of people who were there to disrupt, purely politically driven, not there because they wanted to get answers or discuss the issues.”
Mr. Kratovil said seeing voters in their workplace, or in casual settings like soccer fields, actually provided a broader sampling of public opinion than simply holding formal town-hall-style meetings, which often attract only political activists.
An examination of public schedules for dozens of members of Congress last week showed that more House Republicans held open meetings, including several in a series of forums called America Speaking Out, which is intended to help write the party’s agenda if it wins control of Congress in November.
The anger that erupted at meetings last summer — focused, particularly, on the health care legislation — helped draw attention to Tea Party activists. A year later, some of the images are resurfacing once again and will almost certainly be used against lawmakers in television advertisements over the next five months.
Representative Rick Boucher, a Democrat who has represented a wide part of southwestern Virginia for 28 years, has often encountered fierce criticism during his sessions with voters. But he said it was worth listening to the critiques, which often sound nearly identical as he travels across the 23 counties of his district.
“Obviously the town meetings are magnets for people who have a political agenda, but it’s worth putting up with the talking-point-induced political dialogue to get good ideas,” said Mr. Boucher, who was one of the few Democrats last week who did hold a wide-open meeting, which took place Saturday at the high school in Floyd, Va.
“I guess I’m old-fashioned,” said Mr. Boucher, adding that he preferred visiting with voters in person, rather than communicating with them through “tele-town-hall” meetings, a sort of conference call that can include thousands of homes that has been on the rise since the technology was first used in 2006. “I have no plans of changing my approach to this.”
Representative Tom Perriello, a first-term Virginia Democrat, held 21 open meetings last August during the heat of the health care debate. He said that each of the sessions lasted an average of five hours, often ending well after midnight.
“We thought that the best strategy was to let people talk,” Mr. Perriello said. “It was important to stay until people had everything off of their minds.”
Not last week. The meetings were traded for other stops in Mr. Perriello’s central Virginia district, including an elementary school that received broadband Internet through the economic stimulus plan. He also dropped by several businesses, hoping to take the pulse on what he said were the chief issues for his constituents: jobs and the economy.
Without so many lengthy meetings on his agenda, he said he had more time for impromptu encounters with voters. Constituents who were following along received updated information on Twitter, including this bulletin just before lunchtime one day: “Now stopping for a hot dog at Moore’s Country Store!”
And as you all know I LOVE the comment section of these things, so check out these gems.
Bravo for the democrats in refusing to give the neanderthals from the Tea Party their Warhollian twenty minutes of fame. They create a circus atmosphere at these meetings because, after all, they are the clowns. By the way, it's about time that the Times stop giving them attention out of proportion to their numbers.
The Democrat party elite and Obama know what is best for the American public. There is no need for meetings with the people.
(With it being the NYT I can't tell if this person is being serious or sarcastic)
Only Ignorant New York liberals would think it is a good idea for REPRESENTATIVES to avoid the electorate. If your chicken hearted Democratic reps had REAL and HONEST answers to questions, they would not have to hide.
I find it extremely humorous that otherwise intelligent people support a rep's 'right?' to dodge the populace. Must be the kool aid!
I find it extremely humorous that otherwise intelligent people support a rep's 'right?' to dodge the populace. Must be the kool aid!
So Kratovil has an INVITATION ONLY meeting and is happy? He is too cowardly to have an open town hall. And he criticizes those voters, angry with his ramming the health care destruction bill down their throats, as disruptive? My, what courage.
So what part of Maryland is this politician from? Moscow? St. Petersburg?
NY Times, where are the opposing opinions to these self-serving ones you allow the Democratic politicians to make?
So what part of Maryland is this politician from? Moscow? St. Petersburg?
NY Times, where are the opposing opinions to these self-serving ones you allow the Democratic politicians to make?
My, my, my, all of a sudden the Democrats (Socialists) don't want to use the democratic process, like meeting their constituents face on. They are skipping the town halls because it now is not in their best interests as it once was when democracy was the framework of the Democratic and Republican parties. The Democrats are into ruling now, not leading, so it makes sense to rule from the bull pit rather than shaking hands and getting out their "compassion". Of course we now know that compassion is not part of the Democratic Party. The like to get elected citizens into office through HORSE TRADING. After all, isn't that how OBAMA became president, through HORSE TRADING.
The Obamatrons keep saying that the "insurance industry" and other nefarious corporate interests are behind what these automatons sexually slur as "teabaggers." I guess that's why the latest Gallup Poll has the Republicans at 49% generically and the Democrats 43%, giving the Republicans the HIGHEST EVER generic percentage of the voters' allegiance since the Gallup Poll began monitoring this stat 60 years ago in 1950.
Yes, in the funhouse mirror of the loyal NYT agitprop-victim, it has to be a big conspiracy, but maybe, just maybe it's because Obama and his merry band are robbing from the Middle Classes to rob the rich, not so rich, middle-income, all to pay the unions and other Democrat constituencies. And to grow a government as big as Greece or Spain or Italy or Ireland or Portugal and become one of the PIIGS, just like California has already done through weak venal liberal politicians giving the state to CALPERS.
Yes, in the funhouse mirror of the loyal NYT agitprop-victim, it has to be a big conspiracy, but maybe, just maybe it's because Obama and his merry band are robbing from the Middle Classes to rob the rich, not so rich, middle-income, all to pay the unions and other Democrat constituencies. And to grow a government as big as Greece or Spain or Italy or Ireland or Portugal and become one of the PIIGS, just like California has already done through weak venal liberal politicians giving the state to CALPERS.
Thursday, June 03, 2010
THIS is gonna be FUN
Hey democrats, remember HIM?!?
Yep just when things might be turning around for democratic prospects (despite the fact they are down 49-43 in the generic GALLUP poll, the highest level they have EVER BEEN) the trial of Rod Blagojevich who was accused of trying to sell Obama's Senate seat or get something in return for it, starts. From the Chicago Tribune:
Yep just when things might be turning around for democratic prospects (despite the fact they are down 49-43 in the generic GALLUP poll, the highest level they have EVER BEEN) the trial of Rod Blagojevich who was accused of trying to sell Obama's Senate seat or get something in return for it, starts. From the Chicago Tribune:
Former Gov. Rod Blagojevich's federal corruption trial will feature prosecutors feeding voters a steady reminder of the worst elements of Illinois' political culture — allegations that money, insider influence and personal interest drive public policy in this state.
From charges of trying to shake down a children's hospital for campaign cash to trying to peddle President Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for profit, the case will once again put Illinois politics on trial.
For Democrats, the trial represents a long-feared day of reckoning after 18 months of a Blagojevich-fueled circus. The challenge is to weather months of testimony involving pay-to-play charges as the party tries to maintain its control of state government, led by Gov. Pat Quinn, who replaced Blagojevich as governor after twice serving as his running mate.
"It's not a plus. It's not a plus," acknowledged House Speaker Michael Madigan, the veteran Southwest Side lawmaker who is chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party.
From charges of trying to shake down a children's hospital for campaign cash to trying to peddle President Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat for profit, the case will once again put Illinois politics on trial.
For Democrats, the trial represents a long-feared day of reckoning after 18 months of a Blagojevich-fueled circus. The challenge is to weather months of testimony involving pay-to-play charges as the party tries to maintain its control of state government, led by Gov. Pat Quinn, who replaced Blagojevich as governor after twice serving as his running mate.
"It's not a plus. It's not a plus," acknowledged House Speaker Michael Madigan, the veteran Southwest Side lawmaker who is chairman of the Illinois Democratic Party.
YA THINK!?!? It continues...
For Republicans, it's the down-and-out party's best chance in a decade to convince voters they deserve another shot at running Illinois. The GOP is trying to regain relevancy that evaporated after a federal corruption investigation that ended with the imprisonment of former Republican Gov. George Ryan.
Watch for Republicans to run TV ads that link Blagojevich and any damaging trial testimony to their Democratic opponents. It's the same approach that Blagojevich used in winning two statewide elections, tarring both his opponents with the taint of the Ryan scandal. And some GOP campaigns already are exploring the possibility.
Democrats know they will be forced to play defense, and some will try to point out ties between Blagojevich and longtime Republicans to contend that corruption was not unique to one political party.
"I don't think it's going to be good for Democrats," said Christopher Mooney, a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield. "Quinn inoculated himself pretty well from Blagojevich. But Blagojevich, himself, wrote the book on this. He's taught us how to take a person not associated in any way with taint and link them at the hip."
Amid the attempts at political opportunism, the Blagojevich trial also threatens to drag into the spotlight prominent national Democrats, from former Chicago congressman and current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and his top deputy, Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin.
The Blagojevich defense team contends those leaders can show that the former governor's conversations about the Senate seat were political horse trading and not a crime. Though Emanuel, Reid and Durbin are not accused of any wrongdoing, any association with Blagojevich carries its own political baggage. If nothing else, the trial will resurrect the controversy over Democratic leaders' ineffective efforts to prevent Blagojevich's choice, Sen. Roland Burris, from being seated.
"It's just an embarrassment that the state has to go through this. It's certainly something that will be politically good for us, but it's not good for the state," said Pat Brady, the state's Republican chairman. "I don't want Rahm Emanuel and other people from the White House coming to testify. It doesn't help the country."
Yet Republicans are working to use the trial to resuscitate a political organization that was eviscerated by voters following Ryan's tenure.
Just days before the trial was set to begin, the state GOP compiled an assemblage of photos of current political candidates buddying up to the disgraced former Democratic governor. There's Quinn, a former running mate, standing with Blagojevich at a political rally; Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, the DemocraticU.S. Senate nominee, posing with Blagojevich in tuxedos at an event; and other photos with Blagojevich and Attorney General Lisa Madigan and her father, Michael Madigan.
"The Blagojevich Trial. Starting June 3rd. Check Your Local Listings for Details," the state GOP noted in an e-mail to supporters that included the photos.
A strategist with one Republican statewide campaign said they expect the trial will provide "opportunities" to tag the current crop of Democratic candidates with problems that go back to the Blagojevich administration, from the state's mountain of unpaid bills to Blagojevich hires still on the public payroll.
"It may not be a focal point of the trial, but it does shine a spotlight on the problems of the Democratic Party and the excesses of one-party rule with Blagojevich at the top of it," said the GOP strategist, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the campaigns.
During the February primary for governor, challenger Dan Hynes looked to take advantage of Quinn's former status as a Blagojevich running mate to raise questions in the minds of voters. But Hynes' campaign discovered, and a Tribune poll showed, that Democratic primary voters did not view Quinn negatively over his ties to the former governor.
Though such linkage didn't have any traction for Democratic voters, it is independent voters who decide statewide elections in Illinois, and they will be the target for Republican attempts to tie Blagojevich to Democratic opponents.
A Democratic consultant to one statewide campaign noted that Democrats running at the top of the ticket were not particularly close to Blagojevich but said it would be difficult to explain that to voters.
"The biggest wild card is Rod, himself," said the consultant, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss strategy. "Will he try to take others down with him?"
As is often the case in Illinois' political environment, there is a bipartisan flavor to the Blagojevich scandal.
Blagojevich had dealings with prominent Republican Bob Kjellander, a former member of the GOP National Committee. Prosecutors say he also cultivated a relationship with Stuart Levine, a major fundraiser for Blagojevich and for Republicans who pleaded guilty to trying to use his position on state boards to extract kickbacks from contractors. Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a top Blagojevich fundraiser and adviser who also was convicted of corruption in 2008, was a donor to GOP candidates as well.
To that extent, the trial may serve to remind voters that they share some responsibility for electing him twice.
"Blagojevich is just a public buffoon, but he's all of ours," the Democratic consultant said. "He's not just an issue for Illinois Democrats. Everyone shares ownership."
Watch for Republicans to run TV ads that link Blagojevich and any damaging trial testimony to their Democratic opponents. It's the same approach that Blagojevich used in winning two statewide elections, tarring both his opponents with the taint of the Ryan scandal. And some GOP campaigns already are exploring the possibility.
Democrats know they will be forced to play defense, and some will try to point out ties between Blagojevich and longtime Republicans to contend that corruption was not unique to one political party.
"I don't think it's going to be good for Democrats," said Christopher Mooney, a political science professor at the University of Illinois at Springfield. "Quinn inoculated himself pretty well from Blagojevich. But Blagojevich, himself, wrote the book on this. He's taught us how to take a person not associated in any way with taint and link them at the hip."
Amid the attempts at political opportunism, the Blagojevich trial also threatens to drag into the spotlight prominent national Democrats, from former Chicago congressman and current White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and his top deputy, Illinois' senior senator, Dick Durbin.
The Blagojevich defense team contends those leaders can show that the former governor's conversations about the Senate seat were political horse trading and not a crime. Though Emanuel, Reid and Durbin are not accused of any wrongdoing, any association with Blagojevich carries its own political baggage. If nothing else, the trial will resurrect the controversy over Democratic leaders' ineffective efforts to prevent Blagojevich's choice, Sen. Roland Burris, from being seated.
"It's just an embarrassment that the state has to go through this. It's certainly something that will be politically good for us, but it's not good for the state," said Pat Brady, the state's Republican chairman. "I don't want Rahm Emanuel and other people from the White House coming to testify. It doesn't help the country."
Yet Republicans are working to use the trial to resuscitate a political organization that was eviscerated by voters following Ryan's tenure.
Just days before the trial was set to begin, the state GOP compiled an assemblage of photos of current political candidates buddying up to the disgraced former Democratic governor. There's Quinn, a former running mate, standing with Blagojevich at a political rally; Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, the DemocraticU.S. Senate nominee, posing with Blagojevich in tuxedos at an event; and other photos with Blagojevich and Attorney General Lisa Madigan and her father, Michael Madigan.
"The Blagojevich Trial. Starting June 3rd. Check Your Local Listings for Details," the state GOP noted in an e-mail to supporters that included the photos.
A strategist with one Republican statewide campaign said they expect the trial will provide "opportunities" to tag the current crop of Democratic candidates with problems that go back to the Blagojevich administration, from the state's mountain of unpaid bills to Blagojevich hires still on the public payroll.
"It may not be a focal point of the trial, but it does shine a spotlight on the problems of the Democratic Party and the excesses of one-party rule with Blagojevich at the top of it," said the GOP strategist, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the campaigns.
During the February primary for governor, challenger Dan Hynes looked to take advantage of Quinn's former status as a Blagojevich running mate to raise questions in the minds of voters. But Hynes' campaign discovered, and a Tribune poll showed, that Democratic primary voters did not view Quinn negatively over his ties to the former governor.
Though such linkage didn't have any traction for Democratic voters, it is independent voters who decide statewide elections in Illinois, and they will be the target for Republican attempts to tie Blagojevich to Democratic opponents.
A Democratic consultant to one statewide campaign noted that Democrats running at the top of the ticket were not particularly close to Blagojevich but said it would be difficult to explain that to voters.
"The biggest wild card is Rod, himself," said the consultant, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to discuss strategy. "Will he try to take others down with him?"
As is often the case in Illinois' political environment, there is a bipartisan flavor to the Blagojevich scandal.
Blagojevich had dealings with prominent Republican Bob Kjellander, a former member of the GOP National Committee. Prosecutors say he also cultivated a relationship with Stuart Levine, a major fundraiser for Blagojevich and for Republicans who pleaded guilty to trying to use his position on state boards to extract kickbacks from contractors. Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a top Blagojevich fundraiser and adviser who also was convicted of corruption in 2008, was a donor to GOP candidates as well.
To that extent, the trial may serve to remind voters that they share some responsibility for electing him twice.
"Blagojevich is just a public buffoon, but he's all of ours," the Democratic consultant said. "He's not just an issue for Illinois Democrats. Everyone shares ownership."
Sorry buddy he is YOURS, this is going to get goos people. I'm going to follow this trial as close as I can
Monday, May 03, 2010
More liberal tolerance
It's funny, my friend Mitch Berg, yes the shotinthedark.info Mitch Berg, has his own list of laws when it comes to liberals, sports, etc. There is one, however, that stands out on almost a daily basis. It is starting to become known simply as "Berg's 7th" throughout the MOBosphere
and here it is:
Berg’s Seventh Law of Liberal Projection - When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty, they are projecting.
Oh and FYI this was a law WAY BEFORE there was anything even close to being a tea party. Which in reality only strengthens his thesis.
So today I find this story on DrudgeReport because lord knows the MSM wouldn't pick this up.
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Tens of thousands of people across the Bay Area turned out in protest of Arizona's tough new immigration law. The demonstrations went on all day and some stretched into the night.
In San Jose, thousands of marchers headed to an evening rally at city hall. In San Francisco, a separate demonstration wrapped up in the afternoon, but not without a bit of trouble.
Three people were attacked and at least two others were arrested. The people assaulted were part of the Minutemen demonstration, a group in favor of Arizona's new immigration law.
They said a large group of immigrants' rights supporters followed them to the BART station on Market Street and started punching and kicking them, and calling them names.
"They said we were racists, and we were against them, and against their town, and against San Francisco," said Parker Wilson with the Bay Area National Anarchists. "What they were saying, they said we need to get out and called us racists, and that we need to go home. And then they just attacked my friends and me."
Those arrested will likely be charged with felony assault and robbery. In the meantime, the rest of the rally got vocal but not physical. Emotions divided the street in front of city hall at Civic Plaza. There were those who support Arizona's immigration law and those who do not.
It was the focus of this May Day, commonly known as "International Workers Day."
"We hope with this march they hear us and get something done," Ramon Hernandez with Liuna Local told ABC7.
Similar rallies took place over the nation Saturday. Immigrants' rights groups hope the Arizona law, which was amended Friday night, will be over turned. The updated version makes racial profiling illegal and an officer can question an immigrant's status only after that person is stopped for another crime and not just because he or she looks suspicious.
"I don't think it's going to stop law enforcement from stopping anybody who looks like an immigrant or has the color brown," said San Francisco resident Erle Woo.
Francisco Perez is in the U.S. illegally and worries that Arizona's law could spread to California.
"I think it should stop completely," he said.
As hundreds of people marched through the Mission with their message, a group of Minutemen waited for them at Civic Center Plaza with different message.
"Immigrants are draining our welfare system. They are draining our school system, the judicial system," Elizabeth Kelly with Golden Gate Minutemen told ABC7.
They support legal immigration.
"Nobody is trying to make this a Nazi police state or anything," said Minutemen member Steve Kemp. "That's not what it's about. What it's about is giving police the authority to be able to question people if they're in this country illegally."
But, Andres Balkan of San Francisco believes, "Minute Men is a neo-Nazi organization."
The Minutemen were dramatically out numbered. Police had to move their opponents back and tighten security. The Minutemen let their signs do the talking.
Police say they had no other problems and no other arrests at the rally.
At the height of the march in San Jose, the stream of people stretched for nearly ten blocks. Most of them were demanding that President Obama tackle immigration reform immediately.
As in other locations, marchers in San Jose said that because of the events in Arizona, the usually-spirited May Day march was bigger and more energized.
"I think yeah, it helped a lot," said Karina Gudino. "Every year, people come but this year, even more I think, because of the Arizona law. They're all against it because it's really a racist law."
"It's just really stupid, what is happening," Vicky Delarenal said. "I think this country is made of immigrants and I think again, we just need to keep fighting for this. That's why I'm here, just to support the people."
In the East Bay, demonstrators at a May Day rally near the Fruitvale BART station said this year's event took on added significance because of the new Arizona law.
"We feel it's going to be racist and discriminatory to the immigrant population, particularly to the Latino population, but actually for all immigrants, because the undocumented population in this country comes from all over the globe," said protestor Lillian Galedo
About 200 demonstrators also marched through Fremont in protest of the illegal immigration crackdown.
People who oppose what is happening in Arizona are angry and loud, but they are in the minority. Polls show the majority of people in America support Arizona's new law.
and here it is:
Berg’s Seventh Law of Liberal Projection - When a Liberal issues a group defamation or assault on conservatives’ ethics, character or respect for liberty, they are projecting.
Oh and FYI this was a law WAY BEFORE there was anything even close to being a tea party. Which in reality only strengthens his thesis.
So today I find this story on DrudgeReport because lord knows the MSM wouldn't pick this up.
SAN FRANCISCO (KGO) -- Tens of thousands of people across the Bay Area turned out in protest of Arizona's tough new immigration law. The demonstrations went on all day and some stretched into the night.
In San Jose, thousands of marchers headed to an evening rally at city hall. In San Francisco, a separate demonstration wrapped up in the afternoon, but not without a bit of trouble.
Three people were attacked and at least two others were arrested. The people assaulted were part of the Minutemen demonstration, a group in favor of Arizona's new immigration law.
They said a large group of immigrants' rights supporters followed them to the BART station on Market Street and started punching and kicking them, and calling them names.
"They said we were racists, and we were against them, and against their town, and against San Francisco," said Parker Wilson with the Bay Area National Anarchists. "What they were saying, they said we need to get out and called us racists, and that we need to go home. And then they just attacked my friends and me."
Those arrested will likely be charged with felony assault and robbery. In the meantime, the rest of the rally got vocal but not physical. Emotions divided the street in front of city hall at Civic Plaza. There were those who support Arizona's immigration law and those who do not.
It was the focus of this May Day, commonly known as "International Workers Day."
"We hope with this march they hear us and get something done," Ramon Hernandez with Liuna Local told ABC7.
Similar rallies took place over the nation Saturday. Immigrants' rights groups hope the Arizona law, which was amended Friday night, will be over turned. The updated version makes racial profiling illegal and an officer can question an immigrant's status only after that person is stopped for another crime and not just because he or she looks suspicious.
"I don't think it's going to stop law enforcement from stopping anybody who looks like an immigrant or has the color brown," said San Francisco resident Erle Woo.
Francisco Perez is in the U.S. illegally and worries that Arizona's law could spread to California.
"I think it should stop completely," he said.
As hundreds of people marched through the Mission with their message, a group of Minutemen waited for them at Civic Center Plaza with different message.
"Immigrants are draining our welfare system. They are draining our school system, the judicial system," Elizabeth Kelly with Golden Gate Minutemen told ABC7.
They support legal immigration.
"Nobody is trying to make this a Nazi police state or anything," said Minutemen member Steve Kemp. "That's not what it's about. What it's about is giving police the authority to be able to question people if they're in this country illegally."
But, Andres Balkan of San Francisco believes, "Minute Men is a neo-Nazi organization."
The Minutemen were dramatically out numbered. Police had to move their opponents back and tighten security. The Minutemen let their signs do the talking.
Police say they had no other problems and no other arrests at the rally.
At the height of the march in San Jose, the stream of people stretched for nearly ten blocks. Most of them were demanding that President Obama tackle immigration reform immediately.
As in other locations, marchers in San Jose said that because of the events in Arizona, the usually-spirited May Day march was bigger and more energized.
"I think yeah, it helped a lot," said Karina Gudino. "Every year, people come but this year, even more I think, because of the Arizona law. They're all against it because it's really a racist law."
"It's just really stupid, what is happening," Vicky Delarenal said. "I think this country is made of immigrants and I think again, we just need to keep fighting for this. That's why I'm here, just to support the people."
In the East Bay, demonstrators at a May Day rally near the Fruitvale BART station said this year's event took on added significance because of the new Arizona law.
"We feel it's going to be racist and discriminatory to the immigrant population, particularly to the Latino population, but actually for all immigrants, because the undocumented population in this country comes from all over the globe," said protestor Lillian Galedo
About 200 demonstrators also marched through Fremont in protest of the illegal immigration crackdown.
People who oppose what is happening in Arizona are angry and loud, but they are in the minority. Polls show the majority of people in America support Arizona's new law.
Tolerant my ass.
Monday, March 15, 2010
While we go back and forth on Healthcare
Our neighbors to the south are battling a much more significant issue. When it comes to stuff like this it really makes you grateful to live in a country like this where we have the ability to debate such things as healthcare and other meaningless liberal crap (in comparison). In an effort to make myself actually write more on this blog I have decided to rely less on articles from the web on content and work on more original content. I have decided to write a paper about this in my Latin American politics class and if it turns out well I will post it here.
The problem I have with this drug cartel issue in Mexico is not that I think drugs should be legalized to solve this problem because it wouldn't. It would be the medical equivalent of putting a band-aid on a broken arm. It feels good to do and in some ways of thinking it might make seem to do good but in reality it does nothing. Believe me, part of my libertarian beliefs say that they should but all it would do is create another market, if the government sells weed for say, $50 a dimebag (I'm not a smoker, I have no idea if this is "market value" now or not) the drug cartels would lowball it to $15-25 since they have almost no overhead. All legalizing drugs would do would make them more available to the average person and make the drug lords a little less rich.
So what do we do? We have to get together an elite Mexico squad that is paid well enough so the cartels wouldn't recruit them, which is Mexico's #1 problem with the drug war. The cartels are virtually running Mexico and if we are not careful this drug war will spill over into the US and become a massive security problem. I will do a running series on this throughout the week because the media is fianlly starting to pay attention to it and it is a real national security problem. I am on spring break this week so hopefully I will be up for daily posts.
The problem I have with this drug cartel issue in Mexico is not that I think drugs should be legalized to solve this problem because it wouldn't. It would be the medical equivalent of putting a band-aid on a broken arm. It feels good to do and in some ways of thinking it might make seem to do good but in reality it does nothing. Believe me, part of my libertarian beliefs say that they should but all it would do is create another market, if the government sells weed for say, $50 a dimebag (I'm not a smoker, I have no idea if this is "market value" now or not) the drug cartels would lowball it to $15-25 since they have almost no overhead. All legalizing drugs would do would make them more available to the average person and make the drug lords a little less rich.
So what do we do? We have to get together an elite Mexico squad that is paid well enough so the cartels wouldn't recruit them, which is Mexico's #1 problem with the drug war. The cartels are virtually running Mexico and if we are not careful this drug war will spill over into the US and become a massive security problem. I will do a running series on this throughout the week because the media is fianlly starting to pay attention to it and it is a real national security problem. I am on spring break this week so hopefully I will be up for daily posts.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Finally someone willing to say it...
I have been yelling at the TV for the past 8 months usually whenever Obama comes on and says something obviously false. Either that or I start laughing. I've learned to laugh more and I continue to be amazed that 54% of the voting public in 2008 voted for this loser. From Reason.com
Here’s how predictable the president’s slippery relationship with the truth has become: Hours before the State of the Union address, Washington Examiner reporter Timothy P. Carney posted a “pre-emptive fact check” that, among other things, prebutted any presidential claim to have “stopped the revolving door between government and corporate lobbying.” As it happened, that night Barack Obama made an even bolder (read: less truthful) claim: that “we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”
In fact, more than 40 former lobbyists work in the administration, including such policy makers as Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn (who was lobbying for Raytheon as recently as 2008), Office of the First Lady Director of Policy and Projects Jocelyn Frye (National Partnership for Women and Families), White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz (National Council of La Raza), and Treasury Secretary Chief of Staff Mark Patterson (Goldman Sachs).
When Carney confronted a White House spokeswoman with the falsehood, she conceded nothing. “As the President said,” she wrote, “we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions.” Just not all of them.
As such defiance suggests, this was no isolated slip of the tongue. The president, who promised in both word and style to usher in a “new era” of Washington “responsibility,” routinely says things that aren’t true and supports initiatives that break campaign promises. When called on it, he mostly keeps digging. And when obliged to explain why American voters are turning so sharply away from his party and his policies, Obama pins the blame not on his own deviations from verity but on his failure to “explain” things “more clearly to the American people.”
Take the issue he has explained more than any other: health care. In the State of the Union address, Obama claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had estimated that “our approach” to health care reform “would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.” This is, strictly speaking, not true. The Democrats’ “approach” to health care reform includes a permanent change to the Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, colloquially known as the “doc fix.” The CBO estimated that the doc fix, when combined with the health care reform legislative package, actually “would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law, an increment that would grow in subsequent years.” This is why House Democrats stripped out the doc fix from the health care bill, and passed it separately; it made the CBO scores look bad, making it harder for the president to present bogus claims about deficit neutrality.
That bit of mendacity only scratches the surface of how Congress and the administration gamed the system to produce nice-looking numbers. The CBO, by its own rules, has to take Congress at its word when a piece of legislation promises unspecified future “cuts” in spending, even though an overwhelming majority of promised future cuts never come to pass (a fact that the CBO itself has repeatedly warned in supplementary comments). The Senate promised more than $300 billion in such cuts. Furthermore, the CBO scores bills in 10-year windows. So the Senate delayed more than 99 percent of the reform package’s spending until 2014, thus allowing the decade of 2010–2019 to clock in under the magic $1 trillion number. Add to all that chicanery the fact that every major health care entitlement expansion in U.S. history has vastly exceeded initial cost projections, and you have ample reasons for why Americans believed, by a margin of more than 3 to 1, that health care reform would exacerbate rather than improve the deficit.
Even when addressing black-and-white examples of broken promises —such as his vow to televise each and every bit of health care legislative negotiations on C-SPAN—Obama can’t quite resist the temptation to plead gray. When confronted directly on the broken C-SPAN pledge during a January meeting with GOP lawmakers, the president said: “Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process—just over the course of the year—overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which you guys were participating.”
Presidential defiance, dissembling, and disinformation are nothing new, even if such political perennials are more disappointing coming from someone who still boasts (as he did in the State of the Union address) of “telling hard truths” to the American people and “doing what’s best for the next generation.” Voters pretty much knew that Bill Clinton was a slime ball when they sent him to the White House; Barack Obama held out the promise of being more dignified.
The difference between these two most recent Democratic presidents, substantial to begin with (especially in the crucial area of economic policy), may come into sharper relief in 2010. Clinton’s reptilian relationship with the truth, suffused as it always has been with a catch-me-if-you-can sense of personal preservation, actually turned out to have some uses for the nation when he changed course after the 1994 Republican revolution and began co-opting some of the limited-government policies proposed by his opponents. It’s easier for a chameleon to change his spots.
Obama’s dishonesty, by contrast, seems to spring from a different place. As a man who has spent most of his career wowing people with his words and very little of it converting those words into deeds, he has an activist’s gap between rhetoric and reality and a radio broadcaster’s promiscuous carelessness with cutting rhetorical corners. Sure, it’s not technically true that the administration’s day-one lobbying reforms served “to get rid of the influence of…special interests,” as he claimed in a January radio address (to the contrary: federal lobbying in 2009 set an all-time record), but it’s easy to imagine that the president feels his combination of tighter employment restrictions for ex-lobbyists and stricter disclosure requirements for current ones is, in the context of the Manichean fight between “the people” and “special interests,” good enough for government work. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, and the critics who complain are just opportunistic literalists grasping for any club to beat back the march of progress. No need to give them an inch.
But there’s a less charitable explanation too. During the president’s nonstop gabfests before, during, and after the State of the Union speech, he kept repeating the fiction that the medical industry’s “special interests” were significantly to blame for scotching his health care legislation. In fact, the administration and Congress negotiated with those interests every step of the way, receiving crucial buy-in and millions in campaign contributions. Pro-reform lobbyists outspent anti-reform lobbyists on advertising by a factor of 5 to 1. There’s a three-letter word for blaming the defeat of his bill on health care lobbyists, and it rhymes with pie.
And yet it smacks of something worse still. When a politician cannot fathom opposition to his policies except as the manifestation of wicked manipulation by bad guys, remediable only by more thorough “explanations” from the good guys, it indicates an unseemly paternalism. And if he cannot take the hint that Bush-Obama bailout-and-spend economics are deeply and increasingly unpopular, that indicates something immovable about his core economic ideology. With those two factors as backdrop, it’s hard to say which would be worse: if the president didn’t really believe what he said, or if he did.
Ouchies
Here’s how predictable the president’s slippery relationship with the truth has become: Hours before the State of the Union address, Washington Examiner reporter Timothy P. Carney posted a “pre-emptive fact check” that, among other things, prebutted any presidential claim to have “stopped the revolving door between government and corporate lobbying.” As it happened, that night Barack Obama made an even bolder (read: less truthful) claim: that “we’ve excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs.”
In fact, more than 40 former lobbyists work in the administration, including such policy makers as Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn (who was lobbying for Raytheon as recently as 2008), Office of the First Lady Director of Policy and Projects Jocelyn Frye (National Partnership for Women and Families), White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz (National Council of La Raza), and Treasury Secretary Chief of Staff Mark Patterson (Goldman Sachs).
When Carney confronted a White House spokeswoman with the falsehood, she conceded nothing. “As the President said,” she wrote, “we have turned away lobbyists for many, many positions.” Just not all of them.
As such defiance suggests, this was no isolated slip of the tongue. The president, who promised in both word and style to usher in a “new era” of Washington “responsibility,” routinely says things that aren’t true and supports initiatives that break campaign promises. When called on it, he mostly keeps digging. And when obliged to explain why American voters are turning so sharply away from his party and his policies, Obama pins the blame not on his own deviations from verity but on his failure to “explain” things “more clearly to the American people.”
Take the issue he has explained more than any other: health care. In the State of the Union address, Obama claimed that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had estimated that “our approach” to health care reform “would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades.” This is, strictly speaking, not true. The Democrats’ “approach” to health care reform includes a permanent change to the Medicare reimbursement rates for doctors, colloquially known as the “doc fix.” The CBO estimated that the doc fix, when combined with the health care reform legislative package, actually “would increase the budget deficit in 2019 by $23 billion relative to current law, an increment that would grow in subsequent years.” This is why House Democrats stripped out the doc fix from the health care bill, and passed it separately; it made the CBO scores look bad, making it harder for the president to present bogus claims about deficit neutrality.
That bit of mendacity only scratches the surface of how Congress and the administration gamed the system to produce nice-looking numbers. The CBO, by its own rules, has to take Congress at its word when a piece of legislation promises unspecified future “cuts” in spending, even though an overwhelming majority of promised future cuts never come to pass (a fact that the CBO itself has repeatedly warned in supplementary comments). The Senate promised more than $300 billion in such cuts. Furthermore, the CBO scores bills in 10-year windows. So the Senate delayed more than 99 percent of the reform package’s spending until 2014, thus allowing the decade of 2010–2019 to clock in under the magic $1 trillion number. Add to all that chicanery the fact that every major health care entitlement expansion in U.S. history has vastly exceeded initial cost projections, and you have ample reasons for why Americans believed, by a margin of more than 3 to 1, that health care reform would exacerbate rather than improve the deficit.
Even when addressing black-and-white examples of broken promises —such as his vow to televise each and every bit of health care legislative negotiations on C-SPAN—Obama can’t quite resist the temptation to plead gray. When confronted directly on the broken C-SPAN pledge during a January meeting with GOP lawmakers, the president said: “Look, the truth of the matter is that if you look at the health care process—just over the course of the year—overwhelmingly the majority of it actually was on C-SPAN, because it was taking place in congressional hearings in which you guys were participating.”
Presidential defiance, dissembling, and disinformation are nothing new, even if such political perennials are more disappointing coming from someone who still boasts (as he did in the State of the Union address) of “telling hard truths” to the American people and “doing what’s best for the next generation.” Voters pretty much knew that Bill Clinton was a slime ball when they sent him to the White House; Barack Obama held out the promise of being more dignified.
The difference between these two most recent Democratic presidents, substantial to begin with (especially in the crucial area of economic policy), may come into sharper relief in 2010. Clinton’s reptilian relationship with the truth, suffused as it always has been with a catch-me-if-you-can sense of personal preservation, actually turned out to have some uses for the nation when he changed course after the 1994 Republican revolution and began co-opting some of the limited-government policies proposed by his opponents. It’s easier for a chameleon to change his spots.
Obama’s dishonesty, by contrast, seems to spring from a different place. As a man who has spent most of his career wowing people with his words and very little of it converting those words into deeds, he has an activist’s gap between rhetoric and reality and a radio broadcaster’s promiscuous carelessness with cutting rhetorical corners. Sure, it’s not technically true that the administration’s day-one lobbying reforms served “to get rid of the influence of…special interests,” as he claimed in a January radio address (to the contrary: federal lobbying in 2009 set an all-time record), but it’s easy to imagine that the president feels his combination of tighter employment restrictions for ex-lobbyists and stricter disclosure requirements for current ones is, in the context of the Manichean fight between “the people” and “special interests,” good enough for government work. The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, and the critics who complain are just opportunistic literalists grasping for any club to beat back the march of progress. No need to give them an inch.
But there’s a less charitable explanation too. During the president’s nonstop gabfests before, during, and after the State of the Union speech, he kept repeating the fiction that the medical industry’s “special interests” were significantly to blame for scotching his health care legislation. In fact, the administration and Congress negotiated with those interests every step of the way, receiving crucial buy-in and millions in campaign contributions. Pro-reform lobbyists outspent anti-reform lobbyists on advertising by a factor of 5 to 1. There’s a three-letter word for blaming the defeat of his bill on health care lobbyists, and it rhymes with pie.
And yet it smacks of something worse still. When a politician cannot fathom opposition to his policies except as the manifestation of wicked manipulation by bad guys, remediable only by more thorough “explanations” from the good guys, it indicates an unseemly paternalism. And if he cannot take the hint that Bush-Obama bailout-and-spend economics are deeply and increasingly unpopular, that indicates something immovable about his core economic ideology. With those two factors as backdrop, it’s hard to say which would be worse: if the president didn’t really believe what he said, or if he did.
Ouchies
Monday, March 08, 2010
How very interesting...
I remember the blurb last week about Eric Massa and his (now) supposed sexual harassment of a male staffer but now things are getting, well, um, more complicated to say the least. He is claiming (I'm not sure if he actually has any proof or not, but we shall see) that he was basically set up by Obama and Dead Fish Rham to be ousted because his vote would have (supposedly) been the deciding one in the House for Obamacare and he was going to kill it. From Rollcall.com (non-partisan source)
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) suggested on a New York radio station Sunday that he could rescind his resignation — scheduled to take effect at 5 p.m. Monday — after asserting that an ethics investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed one of his aides may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote.
Responding to a caller to his weekly radio show on WKPQ Power 105 FM, a recording of which was made available via the Web site of local station 13 WHAM-TV, Massa said: “I’m not going to be a Congressman as of 5 o’clock [Monday] afternoon. The only way to stop that is for me to rescind my resignation. That’s the only way to stop it. And the only way that’s going to happen is if this becomes a national story.”
During the hour-and-a-half show, Massa said that Democratic leaders are using the House ethics committee to get him out of office before the vote on health care because he voted against the House health care bill last fall.
“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, 'they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill, and now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass.’ You connect the dots,” Massa said Several times during the broadcast Massa raised the prospect of rescinding his resignation if national news media picked up on his story of being railroaded out of office by Democratic leaders.
In response to a caller's suggestion that Massa disseminate his allegations by contacting Fox News, Massa stated: “I can’t call Fox News. You guys gotta call Fox News. I can’t do it. ... Here’s why. I’m in the center of this storm, so obviously I’m not objective.”
But Massa also repeatedly pointed out that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly referred to as the ethics panel, would continue its investigation if he remains in office.
“That’s very kind of you, but understand what that means for me," Massa said in a response to a caller who suggested he not resign. “It means that a group of lawyers are going to try to rip me and my family limb from limb. And you’ve already seen it in the newspapers. … It’s a piranha feeding frenzy.”
Massa said on the show that the ethics investigation focused on sexually charged comments he made to an aide at a New Year’s Eve celebration, but charged he was unaware of an ethics committee investigation into the incident until after he had announced his retirement last week.
The House ethics committee confirmed Thursday that it is investigating unspecified allegations against Massa.
Massa surprised political observers when he announced on Wednesday that he would not run for re-election in November. He cited a recurrence of cancer as the reason for his decision, but after the ethics investigation was confirmed, Massa announced he would step down immediately.
Seems pretty innocent still, but here is where it gets significantly more interesting, from Hotline On Call
Embattled Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) lashed out in an emotional radio appearance Sunday, accusing Dem leaders of what he suggested was an orchestrated campaign to force his resignation.
"There's a reason that this has all happened, frankly one that I had not realized," Massa said on WKPQ radio on Sunday. "Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it'll pass."
Massa addressed rumors circulating on blogs about his personal behavior, including incidents during an informal Navy ceremony in '83 on the USS New Jersey and one that occurred in a state room later during his Navy career. He insisted he had done nothing uncommon, insisting his sin was foul language.
A complaint before the House ethics committee, he said, stemmed from a wedding Massa attended over New Years, when he made an inappropriate comment to an aide, according to Roll Call, which first reported the radio program.
Massa maintained his comments were inappropriate, but he blamed "political correctness" and accused Dems of a setup. Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.
"When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."
"If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign," Massa said.
Massa slammed House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer for discussing a House ethics committee inquiry, accusing Hoyer of lying in an effort to eliminate an opponent of health care. Hoyer said last week he heard in early Feb. about allegations against Massa, and that he told Massa's office to report the allegations to the ethics committee.
"Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once," Massa said. "Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever."
"I was set up for this from the very, very beginning," he added. "The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against."
Massa bemoaned the state of the nation's politics, which he said is perpetuated by the constant need for money to run for re-election. And, he said, he has been made an example by Dem leadership.
"There is not a single member of the Democratic freshman class whi is going to vote against this health care bill now that they've got me," he said. "Eric Massa's probably not going to go back to Congress, because the only way I would go back there would be as an independent. A pox on both parties."
Massa has held the radio program, in which he took calls from constituents, during his 14 months in office. He said yesterday's episode would be his last as an incumbent.
Holy shit, this is interesting. But wait, theres more...
this is a 12 minute audio clip that is very damning to say the least. You can bet your ass I'm going to follow up on this one. What a way to start the week, sheesh
Rep. Eric Massa (D-N.Y.) suggested on a New York radio station Sunday that he could rescind his resignation — scheduled to take effect at 5 p.m. Monday — after asserting that an ethics investigation into allegations that he sexually harassed one of his aides may have been orchestrated by Democratic leaders to get him out of office before the health care vote.
Responding to a caller to his weekly radio show on WKPQ Power 105 FM, a recording of which was made available via the Web site of local station 13 WHAM-TV, Massa said: “I’m not going to be a Congressman as of 5 o’clock [Monday] afternoon. The only way to stop that is for me to rescind my resignation. That’s the only way to stop it. And the only way that’s going to happen is if this becomes a national story.”
During the hour-and-a-half show, Massa said that Democratic leaders are using the House ethics committee to get him out of office before the vote on health care because he voted against the House health care bill last fall.
“Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, 'they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill, and now they’ve gotten rid of me and it will pass.’ You connect the dots,” Massa said Several times during the broadcast Massa raised the prospect of rescinding his resignation if national news media picked up on his story of being railroaded out of office by Democratic leaders.
In response to a caller's suggestion that Massa disseminate his allegations by contacting Fox News, Massa stated: “I can’t call Fox News. You guys gotta call Fox News. I can’t do it. ... Here’s why. I’m in the center of this storm, so obviously I’m not objective.”
But Massa also repeatedly pointed out that the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, commonly referred to as the ethics panel, would continue its investigation if he remains in office.
“That’s very kind of you, but understand what that means for me," Massa said in a response to a caller who suggested he not resign. “It means that a group of lawyers are going to try to rip me and my family limb from limb. And you’ve already seen it in the newspapers. … It’s a piranha feeding frenzy.”
Massa said on the show that the ethics investigation focused on sexually charged comments he made to an aide at a New Year’s Eve celebration, but charged he was unaware of an ethics committee investigation into the incident until after he had announced his retirement last week.
The House ethics committee confirmed Thursday that it is investigating unspecified allegations against Massa.
Massa surprised political observers when he announced on Wednesday that he would not run for re-election in November. He cited a recurrence of cancer as the reason for his decision, but after the ethics investigation was confirmed, Massa announced he would step down immediately.
Seems pretty innocent still, but here is where it gets significantly more interesting, from Hotline On Call
Embattled Rep. Eric Massa (D-NY) lashed out in an emotional radio appearance Sunday, accusing Dem leaders of what he suggested was an orchestrated campaign to force his resignation.
"There's a reason that this has all happened, frankly one that I had not realized," Massa said on WKPQ radio on Sunday. "Mine is now the deciding vote on the health care bill, and this administration and this House leadership have said, quote unquote, they will stop at nothing to pass this health care bill. And now they've gotten rid of me and it'll pass."
Massa addressed rumors circulating on blogs about his personal behavior, including incidents during an informal Navy ceremony in '83 on the USS New Jersey and one that occurred in a state room later during his Navy career. He insisted he had done nothing uncommon, insisting his sin was foul language.
A complaint before the House ethics committee, he said, stemmed from a wedding Massa attended over New Years, when he made an inappropriate comment to an aide, according to Roll Call, which first reported the radio program.
Massa maintained his comments were inappropriate, but he blamed "political correctness" and accused Dems of a setup. Massa voted against health care legislation in Nov., and he has not been a reliable vote for Dem leadership. That, he said, has put a target on his back.
"When I voted against the cap and trade bill, the phone rang and it was the chief of staff to the president of the United States of America, Rahm Emanuel, and he started swearing at me in terms and words that I hadn't heard since that crossing the line ceremony on the USS New Jersey in 1983," Massa said. "And I gave it right back to him, in terms and words that I know are physically impossible."
"If Rahm Emanuel wants to come after me, maybe he ought to hold himself to the same standards I'm holding myself to and he should resign," Massa said.
Massa slammed House Maj. Leader Steny Hoyer for discussing a House ethics committee inquiry, accusing Hoyer of lying in an effort to eliminate an opponent of health care. Hoyer said last week he heard in early Feb. about allegations against Massa, and that he told Massa's office to report the allegations to the ethics committee.
"Steny Hoyer has never said a single word to me at all, never, not once," Massa said. "Never before in the history of the House of Representatives has a sitting leader of the Democratic Party discussed allegations of House investigations publicly, before findings of fact. Ever."
"I was set up for this from the very, very beginning," he added. "The leadership of the Democratic Party have become exactly what they said they were running against."
Massa bemoaned the state of the nation's politics, which he said is perpetuated by the constant need for money to run for re-election. And, he said, he has been made an example by Dem leadership.
"There is not a single member of the Democratic freshman class whi is going to vote against this health care bill now that they've got me," he said. "Eric Massa's probably not going to go back to Congress, because the only way I would go back there would be as an independent. A pox on both parties."
Massa has held the radio program, in which he took calls from constituents, during his 14 months in office. He said yesterday's episode would be his last as an incumbent.
Holy shit, this is interesting. But wait, theres more...
this is a 12 minute audio clip that is very damning to say the least. You can bet your ass I'm going to follow up on this one. What a way to start the week, sheesh
Thursday, March 04, 2010
Really? Is this even legal?
When I first heard this I could literally not believe my ears. It was too much even for me to believe about our corrupt government. Fortunately since conservatives have a voice now in alternative media this story is going to get out, 20 years ago this could have been buried. Apparently Obama is taking a page out of his old buddy Blago, playbook. Essentially its a pay to play deal that's only slightly less shameful than paying cash to get someone to vote your way. From the Weekly Standard
Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.
Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
“Scott Matheson is a distinguished candidate for the Tenth Circuit court,” President Obama said. “Both his legal and academic credentials are impressive and his commitment to judicial integrity is unwavering. I am honored to nominate this lifelong Utahn to the federal bench.”
Scott M. Matheson, Jr.: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Scott M. Matheson currently holds the Hugh B. Brown Presidential Endowed Chair at the S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, where he has been a member of the faculty since 1985. He served as Dean of the Law School from 1998 to 2006. He also taught First Amendment Law at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government from 1989 to 1990.
While on public service leave from the University of Utah from 1993 to 1997, Matheson served as United States Attorney for the District of Utah. In 2007, he was appointed by Governor Jon Huntsman to chair the Utah Mine Safety Commission. He also worked as a Deputy County Attorney for Salt Lake County from 1988 to 1989. Prior to joining the University faculty, Matheson was an associate attorney from 1981 to 1985 at Williams & Connolly LLP in Washington, D.C.
Matheson was born and raised in Utah and is a sixth generation Utahn. He received an A.B. from Stanford University in 1975, an M.A. from Oxford University, where he was a Rhodes Scholar, and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1980.
So, Scott Matheson appears to have the credentials to be a judge, but was his nomination used to buy off his brother's vote?
Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. "The Congressman is looking for development of bipartisan consensus," Matheson's press secretary Alyson Heyrend wrote to THE WEEKLY STANDARD on February 22. "It’s too early to know if that will occur." Asked if one could infer that if no Republican votes in favor of the bill (i.e. if a bipartisan consensus is not reached) then Rep. Matheson would vote no, Heyrend replied: "I would not infer anything. I’d wait to see what develops, starting with the health care summit on Thursday."
The timing of this nomination looks suspicious, especially in light Democratic Congressman Joe Sestak's claim that he was offered a federal job not to run against Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary. Many speculated that Sestak, a former admiral, was offered the Secretary of the Navy job.
Wow, these people have zero shame. I wonder how this is going to play out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
