Posts Tagged 'tea'

Shut it down

Memories of 1995 haunt GOP as shutdown talks grow. At least that’s the headline.  But why should the 1995 shutdown haunt the GOP?  Republicans shut down the government in order to force liberal Democrat President Bill Clinton to take a sharp turn to the right and balance the budget.  Clinton has been taking credit for it ever since as though somehow balancing the budget was his idea.  You still hear people (who haven’t read my blog) tout the “Clinton surplus”.  Of course, if you read my blog, you know there never was a surplus.

But Republicans did cause Clinton to drastically drop spending and usher in a period of pretty good economic growth for our country.  It started with a government shut down.

Why should a shutdown haunt the GOP?  Democrat senators in Wisconsin seem to think a government shut down is a pretty good idea.  Maybe if the Senate in DC won’t pass the House’s budget, Senate GOP members should go hide in Illinois with the Wisconsin Democrats.

We are about to head into our third deficit in excess of $1 trillion in a row.  In fact, this one is a brand new record of $1.65 trillion.  Someone needs to put the brakes on.  Especially since Obama’s idea of putting on the breaks is to have one deficit as low as $607 billion over the next ten years.  Bush held the previous deficit record at $458 billion for one of his 8 years in office.  Obama has dwarfed Bush’s entire deficit twice already and is on track to do it again.

Obama doesn’t even have a stimulus bill or healthcare law as an excuse this year.  This deficit is simply government spending beyond its means.

Republicans trimmed a tame $61 billion out of the budget, and Dems have labeled them as oppressive, murdering extortionists.  If the GOP doesn’t take drastic measures, by the time Obama leaves office it would take one year of every American paying 100% of every dollar they make in taxes just to cover his deficits.

Clinton managed to take credit for the results of the 1995 government shut down while demonizing Republicans for it.  The grass roots conservative movements who sent the GOP back in 2010 are ready for a shut down.  the question is if Republicans can speak louder than Obama and the media make sure credit is given where credit is due when it works.

Advertisements

O’Donnell Dabbled in Witchcraft, Coons Bathed in Marxism

In a shocking revelation, brought to us by outspoken liberal Bill Maher and highlighted by outspoken Republican strategist Karl Rove, Christine O’Donnell admitted back in 1997 that she once dabbled in witchcraft.  This was of course before she became a born again Christian.  The unexpected Rove-Maher duo quickly jumped on the 13 year old interview, demanding explanations from O’Donnell.  Maher was overhead saying something about making sure you keep your children inside at night, lest she find them and sacrifice them.

O’Donnell, who was harshly attacked only last week for being too much of a fundamentalist Christian whacko, is now defending against attacks of satanism.  To make things even better, Maher has jumped on her ethical discussion of breaking God’s commandments against bearing false witness and is now portraying her as an anti-Semitic Nazi sympathizer who would betray Anne Frank to Hitler if given the opportunity.  I haven’t checked recently, are Nazi references still racist?

While the Rove-Maher political attack machine continued to go after the most evil candidate of our time, Chris Coons is running mostly undetected on the national stage.  Coons is O’Donnell’s Democrat opponent.

Coons also is a self-proclaimed Marxist.  Writing in a college paper, Coons described a trip to Kenya where he lost faith in America and capitalism and embraced Marxism.  It was at this point that he became a Democrat.  In fact, he writes about Kenya that “My friends now joke that something about Kenya, maybe the strange diet, or the tropical sun, changed my personality; Africa to them seems a catalytic converter that takes in clean-shaven, clear-thinking Americans and sends back bearded Marxists,”.

The Politico points out that this could spell trouble for Coons in the corporate friendly state of Delaware.  I suppose it would if anyone found out.  Stories of Coons’ Kenya conversion are near impossible to find now, especially with all the attention being paid to his insane, Hitleresque opponent from hell.

On the other hand, Kenyan Marxists have had some recent electoral success in the US.  In this race, he may do even better to embrace his transformation from a Reagan Conservative.

What’s that?  Yes, Marxist Coons once dabbled in Reagan Conservatism before his conversion to Marxism.  Don’t tell Karl Rove, he might go all Scozzafava on us.

How Third Party Candidates Will Help TEA Party

I’m sure you read the title of this blog and scratched your head.  I assure you I am not crazy.

In 1992 and 1996 Republican candidates who leaned moderate were defeated by Bill Clinton.  In neither election did Clinton get 50% of the popular vote.  In fact, George W. Bush and Al Gore both came closer to 50% in 2000 than Clinton ever got.  In both the 1992 and 1996 elections, Republicans were hijacked by the third party candidacy of Ross Perot.    Perot was a spunky, debt-conscious candidate who predicted many of the troubles we face today.  Though some conservatives would have preferred Perot to George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole, it was from these elections that we had ingrained in our minds that a vote for a third party was a vote for the Democrat.

In 2006 the electorate shifted.  We had RINO Republicans in office, who had easily ridden George W. Bush’s coat-tails and the architecture of Karl Rove.  Conservatives did not like these RINOs and moderates couldn’t tell the RINOs from the Democrats and didn’t like our hundred billion dollar deficits.  In 2006 conservatives stayed home.  Or, in some cases, they voted for the third party candidate.

In this case, I am not talking about a conservative third party candidate, but I am talking about the 2006 re-election of Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut as an independent.  Joe had lost to his radical leftist opponent Ned Lamont, and decided to leave the Democrat party and run on a third party ticket.  In this race, moderate Republicans dumped their no-chance-in-hell (or any other blue state) candidate and voted with the moderate Lieberman.  Lieberman won.

Lieberman’s victory against the radical wing of his party, assisted by moderate Republicans, has given hope to moderates everywhere.  When Marco Rubio went from double digits behind Charlie Crist to the obvious winner, Crist dropped the Republican party and ran as a third party candidate.  Rubio still leads him and his opponent by double digits in a state Democrats gave to Obama in 2008, and the other Senators are a true blue Democrat and a moderate Crist appointed Republican.

You can’t blame RINOs for being upset about their upset losses to TEA party candidates.  Basically, they have been fired by the people in their party.  They didn’t expect it; their bosses in the party kept telling them they were awesome.  Crist will be giving up his Jim Greer expense account and his wife won’t be able to use tax dollars to go to Disney World or partying in NYC anymore.  Murkowski won’t get the lobbyist attention anymore.  Castle is left friendless and embarrassed in Delaware.

So what has changed since 1996?  Now the moderate is the third party.  Instead of the conservative vote being split between the candidate who can win and the candidate who we like, while the moderates and Democrats give the Democrat the victory, conservatives will be united against a candidates whose electorate will be split between radical Democrats and moderates.  Did I mention that Rubio holds a double digit lead over Crist and Meek?

Gallup shows that conservatives make up the largest group percentage-wise in this country.  They accounted for 40% back in 2009 when the deficit was only a trillion dollars and people still thought everything was Bush’s fault.  Moderates accounted for 35% and liberals took 21%.  That leaves “don’t knows” of 4%.  When Republicans were acting like moderates (safe word for mildly liberal), Democrats won.  Why not?  It was 50% to 40%.  Moderates looked at both parties, asked what’s the difference, and then voted for the party that wasn’t pretending to be something it’s not.

But split the liberal and moderate vote, and conservative TEA Party Republicans have a 5% advantage over their RINO opponents.  Still think I’m crazy?  The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll has Marco Rubio at 40%, Charlie Crist at 26% and Kendrick Meek at 21%. Sounds like Gallup got it about right.

So, Conservatives, call Lisa Murkowski and Mike Castle and encourage them to start write-in campaigns.  The moderates in this country need someone to vote for.

With Republicans Like These, Who Needs Democrats?

Last year, Senator Isakson of Georgia sponsored a bill that gave us the $8,000 first time home buyer credit.  Isakson is a Republican.  It was a year when even the best conservatives turned into redistributive socialists.  They joined the leftist majority and borrowed from China in order to redistribute money to Wall Street and its benefactors.  They robbed from the rich and gave to the rich.  Now he wants to extend the bill, nearly double the credit, and open it up to investors as well.  Does he not realize that we are about to do the same thing to Democrats that we did to Republicans in 2006; kick the bums out for spending too much?

In 2008, home values were dropping like crazy.  That’s great news for people without a whole lot of money who need to buy a house.  That’s terrible news for people who build houses.  But the fact is, we had way too many houses on the market.  There was no demand for houses.  The bubble had burst and there was no way around it.  The housing market had become an inefficient use of resources.

In the real world, that is when the over abundance of housing contractors find a new job, as do excess realtors, until the number of houses on the market no longer exceeds the number of families looking to buy a house.  Yeah, it sucks.  Yes, it is also temporary and eventually results in a more efficient growing economy with expanded wealth and opportunity.  But in 2008, Bush, Paulson and the Democrat Congress invented a new term: too big to fail.

Instead, Congress decided to re-inflate the bubble.  Instead of allowing the market to drop the price of houses by $8,000 on its own, which would automatically create demand among the new homebuyer market, Congress decided to borrow money and give Americans $8,000 to buy a new home.  This kept prices inflated, created artificial demand, and kept the bubble inflated.  Until, that is, December 2009 when the program ends.  At that point, Congress must either allow the bubble to burst again, or they must borrow and tax even more so that they can continue to kick the economic can down the road.

We saw the exact same thing with Cash for Clunkers.  Ford even hired a bunch of new people and increased production.  What’s going to happen when the artificial Cash for Clunkers demand ends?  We will soon find out.

What is depressing our economy right now is the anticipation of the next dip.  This dip will be a result of the end of Cash for Clunkers and the first time home buyer credit, TARP repayment, government sales of bailout stock (Citigroup, GM), Cap and Trade that Obama has now admitted will cost every American family $1,700, and the socialization of the healthcare industry.

Is there hope?  Sure.  We can drill for our own oil, creating a whole new economic segment of growth and employing millions while increasing economic demand in other areas.  We can start to pay down debt instead of increasing it so that 10 years from now half our federal budget isn’t going to pay for interest to China.  We can enact free market healthcare reforms that create competition, create tort reform, and cover people in an efficient, constitutional way.  We can cancel plans to tax every American through Cap and Trade and $350 billion in new taxes for Obamacare.  But you won’t get any of this with the current crowd.  Our best shot for economic recovery is the 2010 election.

And then along comes Isakson and the McCain Republicans.  Perhaps, when they stand next to us and before us at the TEA party rallies they are too busy scoring easy political points to actually listen to what we are saying.

Begala Gives Conservatives a Lesson in Love

On September 13, Paul Begala decided that conservatives need a lesson in love. Apparently, out of a million TEA party protesters in Washington DC on Saturday, Begala found an offensive protest sign.  The sign said “Bury Obamacare with Kennedy”.  Obviously that is far more offensive than the call from the Left to “Pass Obamacare because Kennedy died”.  Begala writes an admonishment to the “hate-mongers” in his Huffington Post blog.

Begala has a point you know.  The only reason we could possibly not want free healthcare for all is because we hate Obama.  Chances are, it’s because we are all racists.  That is what causes Begala’s loving, yet somewhat harsh reaction to the sign he saw:

“The sign made me nauseous, made me embarrassed, made me wonder if at long last there is no decency on the far right…Oh, I get it. Sen. Kennedy is dead, and these slugs want health care reform to be dead too. That is so clever.”

That’s right, the embarrassing “slugs” want health care reform to be dead too.  He makes a good point.  Don’t the embarrassing “slugs” realize how hateful it is to want freedom in our medical choices, to not want to stack another trillion dollars onto the deficit, to not want to be forced into paying for abortion?  But no, the “right-wing hate mongers” have to use Kennedy’s death to “make a cheap point” about health care.  That is completely different from naming the bill after Kennedy and calling on people to vote for it in his honor.

Begala says that you can’t even imagine what the response would be if progressives had such a repulsive sign in one of their protests.  Progressives aren’t as hateful as the “teabaggers” (a reference to an incredibly offensive sexual act, used here in love by Begala).

Progressive protest signs are never offensive, argues Begala

Progressive protest signs are never offensive, argues Begala

He has a point.  How would we respond if we ever were to see a Liberal with an offensive protest sign?

“The inmates have taken over the asylum.”  It would be offensive, I guess, if it weren’t so true.  Begala guesses that the reason we are so hateful now is that Reagan is dead and has been replaced with “Joe the shouter…and Sarah Palin the screecher”.  What cute and friendly nicknames.

Begala points out that the “whack-jobs” at the DC demonstrations didn’t have signs saying to repeal Medicare or Social Security.  Apparently we all recognize how successful those are and wouldn’t want to touch them.  Also, none of them had signs protesting the billions wasted keeping our country safe from terrorists.  Apparently these “teabaggers” don’t care about overspending during the Bush administration.   Nevermind that the opening video at the protest highlighted Bush’s stimulus plan of 2008 as an example of government waste.

According to Begala, the TEA party is more about hate, not high-minded debate.  Thank goodness we have people like Paul Begala to let us know who the hypocrites are in this debate.


Share This Blog

Bookmark and Share

Categories

Advertisements