Archive for Republicans

Here’s Your Kippah, What’s Your Hurry?

Boy, the Democrats are laying it on pretty thick with Netanyahu.

At least someone is making him feel welcome:

As Democrats have grown increasingly vocal in their opposition to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington next month, Senate Republicans are laying out the welcome mat.

As one of the chamber’s final acts before members recess for a week, Sen. John Cornyn on Thursday introduced a resolution welcoming Netanyahu to the United States. The resolution was signed by 51 of the chamber’s Republican members and, initially, not a single Democrat. Cornyn said he would circulate a Dear Colleague letter later Thursday urging all 100 senators to sign onto the resolution.

“During this time of such great instability and danger in the Middle East, the United States should be unequivocal about our commitment to one of our closest and most important allies,” Cornyn said in a statement. “I hope all my colleagues will join me in welcoming Prime Minister Netanyahu to Washington so we can continue to work together to advance our common security interests.”

The Republicans’ gesture comes as Democrats in the House and Senate have grown increasingly critical of Netanyahu’s visit, which comes at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner and without consultation with the administration. Several Democrats, particularly Congressional Black Caucus members, have talked about boycotting the speech, and the White House announced that Vice President Biden will not be able to attend due to a trip to South America. The trip has also become a huge source of controversy in Israel, as Netanyahu’s visit will come just weeks before he is up for reelection.

Rep. Charlie Rangel, D-N.Y., has been particularly outspoken on the matter, even making jokes at Netanyahu’s expense during the National Press Club Foundation dinner last week that left some Republican members squirming in their seats. “I cannot think of any reason as to why someone who differs with my president should be coming to my country, my Congress in order to—especially, when it’s preceding an election in a foreign country, as friendly as she might be,” Rangel said this week.

They don’t even pretend anymore it’s about a breach of protocol. It’s outright hatred. And why it’s a race issue is way beyond me. The Speaker of the House—an equal branch of government—extended the offer, and the Obama forces went ballistic.

So, what did Rangel say that made Republicans squirm?

Harlem Congressman Charlie Rangel on Wednesday joked about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming speech to Congress, in a pretend phone call with the Israeli prime minister.

“Yeah, Bibi, yes, no, I’m speaking at the Press Club. Yes indeed. No, I did meet with the president. We had lunch today. No, I’m afraid your name never came up,” Rangel said in his mock phone call conversation at the Washington Press Club Foundation’s 71st Congressional Dinner, where members of Congress roast the media and each other.

“I don’t know what AIPAC told you but, listen, most of us really love Israel … but the one thing that doesn’t happen is you don’t come to our country, and our house, and criticize our president,” he said. “And so I would advise you check before you come because you don’t want to have this problem.”

He ended the fake call by saying, “Shalom you too.”

It wasn’t “shalom” he was saying, you bigot, it was “eat s**t”.

PS: Maybe some of you don’t find that offensive. But I had to search pretty hard to find it. If it’s cool, where was the reporting?

Comments

Freedom of Speech

Code Pink has it.

And so does John McCain:

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain had harsh words for protesters who shouted criticism at 91-year-old Henry Kissinger at a hearing Thursday.

“Get out of here, you low-life scum,” the Arizona Republican told the protesters.

Kissinger, the diplomat who was secretary of state under President Richard Nixon, as well as President Ronald Reagan secretary of state George Shultz and Madeleine Albright, who was secretary of state under President Bill Clinton, were on hand for a hearing on global security challenges.

As the hearing started, several protesters approached the table where Kissinger was seated, holding signs and shouting at him.

“I’ve been a member of this committee for many years and I have never seen anything as disgraceful and outrageous and despicable as the last demonstration that just took place,” McCain said.

“You know, you’re going to have to shut up or I’m going have you arrested,” he said, summoning Capitol Hill police.

And then, to a smattering of applause, McCain added: “Get out of here you low-life scum.”

I won’t take sides in this debate, but I have to give McCain credit for accuracy and pithiness.

Comments

Hey Libs! Put a Tarp Over Your Computer Screens

Warned you:

Top officials in the Koch brothers’ political organization Monday released a staggering $889 million budget to fund the activities of the billionaires’ sprawling network ahead of the 2016 presidential contest.

The budget, which pays for everything from advertising and data-gathering technology to grass-roots activism, was released to donors attending the annual winter meeting of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce, according to an attendee.

During remarks Saturday, Charles Koch said the organization would not back down from its ambitions.

“Americans have taken an important step in slowing down the march toward collectivism,” Koch said, according to excerpts released over the weekend. “But as many of you know, we don’t rest on our laurels. We are already back at work and hard at it.”

Koch said the group’s efforts have been “largely defensive to slow down a government that continues to swell and become more intrusive.”

During last year’s midterm elections, Koch-affiliated groups spent millions in advertising to successfully toss out Democrats from the Senate and put the chamber in Republican control. In all, the Koch network is believed to have spent $290 million to help shape 2014 election results.

“We have never seen this before,” Sheila Krumholz, who runs the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, said of the Kochs’ planned spending, “There is no network akin to this one in terms of its complexity, scope and resources.”

Mwahahahaha!!!! The evil Koch Brothers, like the Borg, are relentless and cannot be stopped. Resistance is futile. Prepare to be assimilated.

With a few exceptions:

Steyer, Thomas & F. & Kathryn Ann Fahr: $74,009,434
Bloomberg, Michael R. $10,377,600
Eychaner, Fred, Newsweb Corp $8,267,000
Simons, James H. & Marilyn H., Renaissance Technologies/Simons Fdtn $7,624,700
Soros, George, Soros Fund Management $3,755,400

You effing cheapskate, Soros. Tom Steyer is bankrupting himself to save the planet from the peril of global warming; even Republican Michael Bloomberg spent over $10,000,000 on Democrat and liberal candidates; and you… you miser couldn’t cough up what amounts to nickels under your sofa cushion. You’re probably a Koch mole.

Mwahahahaha!!!!

Comments

Who Shot J(ews) R(epeatedly)?

Yesterday, we shared the opinion of the Turkish prime minister (or president or aga or bey or whatever), Turducken, that the French, not Muslims, carried out the massacres in Paris. The same article reported that at least one Russian newspaper suggested America was behind the atrocities. We take it as given that the Mossad is widely suspected. I doubt the boast from Al Qaeda’s Yemen franchise that they done the deed will change any minds.

But Chris Hayes has a novel conspiracy theory:

“Due to last week’s horrific murders in France, the 114th Congress’s first week did not get a lot of air time, which is probably a good thing for the GOP,” Hayes said before introducing a segment devoted to Congressional Republican infighting and the party’s legislative agenda.

The news this morning is that John Boehner was the target of an assassination plot. What are the odds that he was simultaneously hatching one of his own?

MSNBC: what a waste of air time.

Comments

Lost and Found

Lost: One Republic, 238 yrs old, fixer-upper; red, white, and blue; friendly, but do not abuse; answers to “America”.

Found: 30,000 emails (see above):

Up to 30,000 missing emails sent by former Internal Revenue Service official Lois Lerner have been recovered by the IRS inspector general, five months after they were deemed lost forever.

The U.S. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) informed congressional staffers from several committees on Friday that the emails were found among hundreds of “disaster recovery tapes” that were used to back up the IRS email system.

“They just said it took them several weeks and some forensic effort to get these emails off these tapes,” a congressional aide told the Washington Examiner.

Just “weeks” and “effort”, huh? That’s all it took to recover the irrecoverable? On a Friday, the Friday before Thanksgiving week, no less? And they accuse us of cynicism!

The missing emails extend from 2009 to 2011, a period when Lerner headed the IRS’s exempt-organizations division. The emails were lost when Lerner’s computer crashed, IRS officials said earlier this year.

In June Koskinen told Congress the emails were probably lost for good because the disaster recovery tape holds onto the data for only six months. He said even if the IRS had sought the emails within the six-month period, it would have been a complicated and difficult process to produce them from the tapes.

The IRS also lost the emails of several other employees who worked under Lerner during that period.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee he chairs will be one of the committees that will examine the emails.

“Though it is unclear whether TIGTA has found all of the missing Lois Lerner e-mails, there may be significant information in this discovery,” Issa told the Examiner. “The Oversight Committee will be looking for information about her mindset and who she was communicating with outside the IRS during a critical period of time when the IRS was targeting conservative groups. This discovery also underscores the lack of cooperation Congress has received from the IRS. The agency first failed to disclose the loss to Congress and then tried to declare Lerner’s e-mails gone and lost forever. Once again it appears the IRS hasn’t been straight with Congress and the American people.”

I said the other day that Putin is to Obama as Obama is to Congress. Putin flouts the law, abuses norms, lies, justifies, and laughs in the face of argument or protest. Oh, did I write “Putin”? That’s Obama. Putin doesn’t even bother prevaricating; he just takes. It’s time for Ukraine—and Congress—to fight back. Edmund Burke: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

In lieu of good men, we’ll just have to hope for the best from the Republicans—i.e. we’re hosed.

Comments

Playing Chicken vs. Being Chicken

The reason Vladimir Putin is eating Barack Obama’s lunch is because Putin behaves like a crazy-a**-motherfu**er. In such a stare-down, Obama doesn’t just blink, he flutters his eyelashes.

In the stare-down over amnesty for criminal aliens, however, Obama is Putin: he’s acting like George III on steroids.

And Republicans in Congress can’t look him in the eye:

The only way for Republicans to block the president’s planned amnesty-by-executive order is to withhold funding for its implementation.

Republicans have yet to devise an agreed strategy to withhold funding that wouldn’t be met by an Obama veto.

Such a veto would result in at least a partial government “shutdown.”

Even though (1) Republicans would continue to fund 99 percent of government, including all essential services and personnel, and (2) Obama’s veto would be the proximate cause of the “shutdown,” Conventional Beltway Wisdom is that Republicans would be blamed for the “shutdown.”

Media will hype stories of alleged catastrophes, disasters, and cataclysms purportedly caused by the “shutdown.”

Media will utterly ignore stories about the profound harm amnesty causes to American workers, American sovereignty, health and safety, the federal budget, and the rule of law.

Republicans know they’re wholly inept at explaining the simplest of facts to the American people and refuting media/Democrat spin.

Consequently, Conventional Beltway Wisdom holds that the “shutdown” will do extraordinary political damage to Republican election prospects for 2016.

Republicans tend to believe what they read in the Washington Post.

Republicans are, therefore, terrified of a “shutdown.”

Republicans are apparently oblivious to the fact that last year’s disastrous “shutdown” resulted in a Republican takeover of the Senate, the largest GOP majority in the House since WWII, control of two-thirds of state legislatures, and GOP governorships in super-blue Massachusetts, Maryland, and Illinois.

Republicans are similarly oblivious to the fact that Oregon voters rejected driver’s licenses for illegal aliens by a 2–1 margin.

Republicans are apparently unaware that Obama is more unpopular than at any point in his presidency and, post-Grubergate, has less credibility than Baghdad Bob.

I can’t blame Republicans for something they haven’t done. But if they end up having done nothing, Obama should throw them some table scraps because they will truly be his bitches.

Comments (2)

Ripe for Impeachment

I’m not saying it’ll happen: impeachment is more a political act than a legal one.

But Andy McCarthy makes the case:

I drew on Faithless Execution in last weekend’s column and in a follow-up Corner post, positing that, short of credibly threatening impeachment, Congress and the courts can neither compel a president to enforce the laws nor stop him from using his plenary pardon authority to grant a sweeping amnesty. That gets Obama two-thirds of the prize he is pursuing — namely, several million aliens whose illegal status has been purged, put on the path to inevitable voting rights that will give Democrats an invincible electoral majority.

By calling on Congress to pass a bill to his liking, Obama has admitted he doesn’t have the authority to do this on his own. He has said exactly that several times over the years, as captured in a video we posted yesterday. By issuing this fiat, therefore, he will exceed his authority—by his own admission and reasoning. Either the proposed amnesty will have no validity; or, if he attempts to enforce it, he will be violating the Constitution. Again, he says so.

That may seem like a political impossibility—I am far from prepared to issue one of my Thirstradamus predictions—but it may become more possible over time:

Congress could, in theory, block the president from granting illegal immigrants legal status and other positive benefits (such as work permits) without impeaching him. To do this in reality, though, Congress would have to use its power of the purse. Translation: It would take the credible threat of a government shutdown to check the president’s lawless conferral of benefits.

Alas, that constitutional parry has already been disavowed by GOP congressional leadership.

Against this backdrop, I am gratified that Fox News’s Megyn Kelly and Charles Krauthammer have just given the topic of impeachment in the immigration context more of the serious consideration it deserves. Appearing on The Kelly File Thursday, Dr. Krauthammer asserted that the president’s anticipated amnesty decree for millions of illegal aliens “is an impeachable offense.”

He is plainly correct. As Faithless Execution elaborates, “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the Constitution’s trigger for impeachment, is a term of art for abuses of power that violate the president’s fiduciary obligations to the American people he serves, the constitutional system he takes an oath to preserve, and the laws whose faithful execution is his core duty. High crimes and misdemeanors are not — or at least, not necessarily — the same as “crimes” and “misdemeanors” prosecutable in the courts. Impeachment is a political remedy (i.e., the removal of political authority), not a legal one (i.e., the removal of liberty after criminal indictment and conviction).

A sweeping amnesty for millions of unrepentant lawbreakers that punishes American workers, imposes crushing burdens on the states, and betrays law-abiding aliens who comply with our immigration rules is not an indictable offense. Yet it is obviously an impeachable one. So is the failure to enforce the immigration laws. And the effort to award by executive decree benefits that only Congress has the power to grant is patently lawless and thus just as clearly impeachable.

Exactly. And, not to be tiresome, but Obama, the ex-Senior Lecturer in Constitutional Law, has said so himself, repeatedly.

The argument goes on, but let me peel off here to discuss the politics. Impeachment requires a majority vote in the House, one I believe would pass easily. The case then is handed over to the Senate for “trial”. To convict, two-thirds (67) of the Senators need to vote in favor. When the new Congress is seated, there will be 54 Republicans, all of whom (let’s say) will vote for impeachment. Can they convince 13 Democrats to go against the party (and the country) to join them? Almost certainly not.

Obama’s proposed decree is politically unpopular, as is he, and a few Dems will vote to impeach. But not enough. As McCarthy says, impeachment is a political act more than a legal one. And there are more than enough political hacks among the Democrats in the Senate to spare The Nation’s First African American President™ from the humiliation of impeachment.

So, is it worth it to proceed? Democrat pollster Pat Caddell described Obama as a “raging narcissist”. Such people do not slink away with their tails between their legs. He’s not bluffing. He doesn’t have to: he can do the math as well as I can (both of us having gone to the same university). I’m not sure I see the point in pursuing a strategy that has almost no chance of success at the end, will leave the offending act unchanged, and may be political overkill.

And I’d vote to impeach him faster than you can say “undocumented citizens”.

But I wonder if wielding the power of the purse might not be a better option, even if it does lead to a shutdown. The GOP feels it took the brunt of criticism for the last “shutdown” (slowdown, barely), yet it just won an historic election. Unlike impeachment, cutting off funds is, as this administration likes to say, a “time-limited, scope-limited” action. A specific remedy to an unpopular act.

I’d also take my chances in the Supreme Court, however this issue might come before them. Even there, the issue would be as much political as it would be legal. But I think a majority of Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Kennedy would rule that the Constitution is not the president’s napkin at a barbecue joint, to be soiled, wadded up, and thrown away whenever it suited him. On that, I would give my Thirstradamus guarantee.

Comments

Who Ordered the Egg Salad?

Remember all the stories about how Obama never mixed with members of Congress? He didn’t schmooze or gladhand? He even avoided his cabinet, preferring the company of intimate insiders like Valerie Jarrett and…Valerie Jarrett.

This has got to be hard for him to swallow:

Obama invited the top four House and Senate leaders to each bring along their top three deputies to the lunch in the White House Old Family Dining Room.


That’s right, sir. You take a big ol’ bite out of that s**t sandwich.

Republican aides said before the lunch that House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) and Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who is in line to become Senate majority leader, would press Obama and Democratic leaders to support dozens of House-passed bills that they believe could be quickly approved next year when the new Congress convenes and could help jump-start the economy.

Boehner and McConnell were also expected to remind Obama — as they did in public this week — that he runs the risk of spoiling any attempt at bipartisan cooperation if he takes steps to overhaul the nation’s immigration laws by using his presidential executive authorities, aides said.

“Finding common ground is going to be hard work, but it will be even harder if the president isn’t willing to work with us,” Boehner told reporters Thursday at his post-election news conference. “I’ve told the president before, he needs to put politics aside and rebuild trust.”

Which president does he mean? Fillmore? Not this one, surely. The first words out of his mouth to Republicans after the inauguration were “I won.” He has ignored Congressional intent, abused his office, and conspired with fellow Democrats in Congress to ruin the traditions and rules of the legislative body. Rebuild trust? Work with you? If you bring a knife, John Boehner, he’s bringing a gun.

Comments

Demographics Against Democrats

Here’s a word you don’t often see associated with Republicans: Demographics.

Over the past five years, the Democratic Party has tried to add class warfare to its pre-existing focus on racial and gender grievances, and environmental angst. Shortly after his re-election in 2012, President Obama claimed to have “one mandate .?.?. to help middle-class families and families that are working hard to try to get into the middle class.”

Yet despite the economic recovery, it is precisely these voters, particularly the white middle and working classes, who, for now, have deserted the Democrats for the GOP, the assumed party of plutocracy. The key in the 2014 mid-term elections was concern about the economy; early exit polls Tuesday night showed that seven in 10 voters viewed the economy negatively, and this did not help the Democratic cause.

“The Democrats have committed political malpractice,” says Morley Winograd, a longtime party activist and a former top aide to Vice President Al Gore during the Clinton years. “They have not discussed the economy and have no real program. They are offering the middle class nothing.”

Winograd believes that the depth of white middle- and working-class angst threatens the bold predictions in recent years about an “emerging Democratic majority” based on women, millennials, minorities and professionals. Non-college educated voters broke heavily for the GOP, according to the exit polling, including some 62% of white non-college voters. This reflects a growing trend: 20 years ago districts with white, working-class majorities tilted slightly Democratic; before the election they favored the GOP by a 5 to 1 margin, and several of the last white, Democratic congressional holdovers from the South, notably West Virginia’s Nick Rahall and Georgia’s John Barrow, went down to defeat Tuesday night.

Rather than the promise of “hope and change,” according to exit polls, 50% of voters said they lack confidence that their children will do better than they have, 10 points higher than in 2010. This is not surprisingly given that nearly 80% state that the recession has not ended, at least for them.

Much more; do read.

But we have enough for discussion to work with here. The GDP grew a respectable 3.5% last quarter, after a whopping 4.6% the quarter before. The unemployment rate is finally below 6%, and the “Unexpected”™ weekly layoff numbers have been historically low recently. Yet nobody feels good about the economy.

Are we stupid? Or have five-plus years of piss-poor “recovery” left us jaded? The labor participation rate is still at historic lows, and 93 million Americans—about the total population of Spain and Kenya combined—don’t work.

And some of us have more personal reasons:

[W]hile failing most Americans, the Obama era has been very kind to plutocrats of all kinds. Low interest rates have hurt middle-income retirees while helping to send the stock market soaring. Quantitative easing has helped boost the price of assets like high-end real estate; in contrast middle and working class people, as well as small businesses, find access to capital or mortgages still very difficult.

Perhaps the biggest attrition for the Democrats has been among middle-class voters employed in the private sector, particularly small property and business owners. In the 1980s and 1990s, middle- and working-class people benefited from economic expansions, garnering about half the gains; in the current recovery almost all benefits have gone to the top one percent, particularly the wealthiest sliver of that rarified group.

You can bet Elizabeth Warren knows those numbers. It would behoove the Republicans to learn them too. I have no patience for bashing the wealthy and chanting about the “99%”, but if Obama’s recovery has left the middle class behind—how many new jobs are full time? who gets a raise any more?—smart people know their political future, and the country’s economic future, lie in getting that right.

And I do not want that person to be Elizabeth Warren.

Comments

Beneath the Wave

The results are still being counted, but Republicans “obviously” had a good night, as even Obama conceded. In the Senate, in the House, and in state houses across the country.

Some point to various ballot measures around the country to demonstrate either the electorate’s hidden liberalism, or its evident confusion.

Me, I don’t see it that way:

Big money was a boon to groups fighting for and against ballot measures across the states on Election Day.

In 21 of the top 25 most expensive state ballot measure races in terms of television ad spending, groups that won the war on the airwaves also won at the ballot box, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of unofficial election results and preliminary data from media tracking service Kantar Media/CMAG.

But surprising upsets also showed that in the wild world of direct democracy, money isn’t everything.

“The relationship is more complicated than just ‘spending more [means] having greater success.’ There are a lot of other factors in terms of the electoral environment,” said Daniel Smith, a University of Florida professor and expert on such initiatives. “Ballot measures generally are easier to defeat than to pass.”

That’s by way of background. Defeat is easier than passing, and big money is a big decider.

But I would argue so is libertarianism:

Here’s a rundown of the major ballot measure results:

Abortion. Coloradans rejected a measure, for the third time in recent years, seeking to grant “personhood” to the unborn. North Dakota similarly rebuffed an amendment to insert into the state’s constitution “the inalienable right to life of every human being at every stage of development.” In Tennessee, however, voters approved new legislative power to regulate abortion, which opponents fear will result in limits on women’s access to the procedure.

Marijuana. Measures to legalize the recreational use of marijuana by adults passed in Oregon and the District of Columbia and appeared on track for passage in Alaska as well. (In the case of Washington, D.C., though, Congress has review power to block the move.) Oregon and Alaska would follow the example of Colorado and Washington State in setting up systems for regulating and taxing retail sales of marijuana. In Florida, a measure dealing with the medicinal use of marijuana fell short of the 60 percent approval needed to pass.

Minimum wage. Voters in four Republican-leaning states approved increases in their minimum wage at a time when Republicans in Congress have resisted boosting the federal minimum from $7.25 per hour. The states are Alaska (to $9.75 by 2016), Arkansas (to $8.50 by 2017), Nebraska (to $9 by 2016), and South Dakota (to $8.50 by 2015). The California cities of San Francisco and Oakland also voted to boost base-level pay.

Guns. Washington State voters approved a measure to expand background checks to private transactions and many loans and gifts. Dan Gross of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence hailed the vote as a symbolic victory in a nation where the public “supports expanding background checks to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people.” According to the group, seven states will now require checks on all gun sales, up from two before the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in December 2012.

Food labeling. Colorado voters rejected a measure that would have required labels to help consumers identify foods with genetically modified organisms. Opponents of the labeling requirements, including food corporations and biotech firms, argue that GMO foods are safe and that the labeling would create undue costs, open the door to lawsuits over labels, and put an implicit stigma on GMO foods. A similar measure in Oregon was too close to call at press time.

Schools. Missouri rejected a constitutional amendment to reform teacher tenure in public schools. It would have made it easier for teachers to be fired and would have required teachers to be evaluated in large measure based on student outcomes.

Gambling. Voters in Massachusetts were in favor of casino plans that are already on track, defeating a measure to pull out before the ventures launch. Rhode Island and Colorado rejected measures to expand gambling.

Hunting. In Maine, voters narrowly rejected a measure to ban the use of bait, dogs, and traps in hunting bears. Animal-rights advocates argued the methods were cruel and unsporting. Mississippi joined other states that have, mostly in the past two decades, enshrined a right to hunt and fish in their constitutions.

Taxes. Georgia voters supported a constitutional amendment to cap their income tax rate. Massachusetts voted to end gas-tax hikes that kick in automatically with inflation. Illinois voters gave an advisory thumbs up to the idea of a 3 percent surtax on income over $1 million to help fund education.

Not as much of a wave as the Republican monster, but on abortion, dope, taxes, the people mostly wanted less government involvement. Not true of Washington state on guns, of course, but the Sea-Tac metro area is reliably left wing (and anyway gun checks are not inherently wrong). Even the votes in favor of the minimum wage were underwhelming, as they all fell well below the $10.10 rate most libs want to impose. (I have gone on record as not opposed to a minimum wage hike, but purely on political grounds. I know it will cost jobs, but if opposing it costs votes, what’s the point? If people want fewer jobs, Senator BTL would like to keep his, thank you very much.)

No, I don’t see much evidence of liberalism, except where liberalism and libertarianism overlap. But if Republicans govern as the party to stop government encroachment (in ObamaCare, spending, amnesty for illegals, etc.), I think they will continue to reap the rewards of what Obama hath wrought.

Comments

BOO!!!

Gotcha, suckahs!

The GOP is outright fear-mongering over a handful of infections. Sadly, it’s working — and just before Election Day.

The GOP’s lack of interest in news must be the explanation for why they continue to whip up fears about Ebola, right? For example, during Thursday’s U.S. Senate debate in New Hampshire, Republican Scott Brown mentioned that, “There is a rational fear from citizens in New Hampshire” that “people with diseases are coming through our border.”

Of course, Brown didn’t cite even one example of an Ebola-infected person sneaking into the United States. But hey, facts don’t matter when scaring voters.

[W]hy are the Republicans continuing with their one-two punch of “Ebola is going to get you” and “Obama is failing to protect your family?” Simple. Fear is the GOP’s modus operandi. We have seen the GOP use it effectively in the past regarding gay marriage, Muslims, blacks and Latinos. They scare voters into voting for them because frankly it’s much simpler than discussing complex issues—like creating jobs, immigration reform, or health care.

And here’s the worst part: Two polls released this week indicate it’s working again. A Politico poll released Monday found that nearly one-third of respondents said they were either losing or have no confidence in the federal government’s handing of the Ebola outbreak.

Add to that a survey released Wednesday that finds that the GOP’s fear-mongering has taken hold of Americans. Almost 46 percent said they were deeply concerned Ebola would spread widely across the country despite the fact that only two people contracted the disease on U.S. soil.

This couldn’t have played out any better for the GOP. First, they scare everyone. Then they position themselves as the guardians of the galaxy who will save us all from this dastardly threat.

Guilty as charged. What gave us away?

Just one small correction for this liberal, elitist hater of Mr. and Mrs. America. They were already scared.

Those few of them who still believed anything this government said compared the reality in the news with the effluvium excreted in news conferences, and came to their own conclusions. They were just looking for someone to represent their views. Republicans dutifully stepped forward (joined by more than a few Democrats, it must be said).

I think we’ll probably survive Ebola as a nation. The Obama regime is a much dicier proposition.

Comments

The Life Of Julia: 2014

Remember the Obama 2012 campaign ads about Julia, who travels cradle to grave on government subsidies?

How’s Julia doing today?

If “Life of Julia,” President Obama’s 2012 online version of liberal paradise characterized by cradle-to-grave dependency on the government, were to be revived, the Republicans might be the ones to benefit:

President Obama delivers remarks at the Democratic National Committee’s Women’s Leadership Forum in Washington in September. (Evan Vucci/Associated Press)
Julia’s grandfather has been waiting for treatment from the Department of Veterans Affairs for years and lives with pain. She liked the idea of Obamacare at first, but it turned out to be a nightmare to sign up and very expensive. She is now paying more than she used to for health care while her salary has been flat for several years. To keep up with expenses, she tries to take on extra work and rent out her spare room through Airbnb, but the city is threatening to shut that down. Her son, a recent college grad, is back living at home since he’s got a boatload of debt and rotten job prospects. Her younger child keeps getting A’s but doesn’t seem to be learning much; Julia worries whether she will be college-ready. The school choice program the state set up sounds great, but the Justice Department is suing to end it.

Meanwhile, her brother is getting discharged by the Army, part of the recent cutbacks. Having lived through 9/11, Julia is more nervous than she has been in a long time because terrorist groups seem stronger than ever and Iran may get the bomb. Ebola has freaked her out, and she has had to stop watching the news, which brings on panic attacks. With the Fed keeping interest rates so low, she is not getting the sort of return on her savings she counted on, and she’s worried Medicare is not going to be there for the long haul. The president sounds like a teenager — nothing is ever his fault.

More at the link. Great stuff. She gets into something called Reform Conservatism, which sounds interesting.

– Aggie

Comments

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »