Archive for the ‘politics’ Category
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010
Jerry Brown: Just like Goebbels
When in doubt, bring up the Nazis. When trouble looms over the political horizon, drop in the Third Reich. When there is nothing of substance left to say, mix in a swastika.
It’s how the modern liberal clings to dear political life.
The real question is: To open-minded progressives like Democrat California gubernatorial nominee, Jerry Brown (relic), what exactly does a non-Nazi–like Republican sound like?
Or is such a thing only hypothetical?
Doug Sovern at his Sovern Nation blog writes:
I ran into Jerry Brown the other day. Or, rather, he ran into me. Literally.
….I asked him how he could possibly compete with her vast campaign treasury – Whitman spent $71 million of her own money on the primary, and is ready to write checks for $80 million more to crush Brown. She also raised about ten million from donors, and there will be more where that came from, from supporters and from the Republican Party.
Brown boasted about his legendary frugality. “I’ve only spent $200,000 so far. I have 20 million in the bank. I’m saving up for her.” It’s true – his stay-on-the-sidelines, bare-bones primary run cost him almost nothing, at least in California political terms. But he also fretted about the impact of all those eBay dollars in Whitman’s very deep pockets. “You know, by the time she’s done with me, two months from now, I’ll be a child-molesting…” He let the line trail off. “She’ll have people believing whatever she wants about me.” Then he went off on a riff I didn’t expect.
“It’s like Goebbels,” referring to Hitler’s notorious Minister of Propaganda. “Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That’s her ambition, the first woman president. That’s what this is all about.”
Meg Whitman is just like Joseph Goebbels.
How did everyone miss that, except you?
Are there better masters at cheapening language then liberals? From saying America’s health care “crisis” is a modern-day Holocaust to comparing Tea Partiers to Civil Rights Era racists, no one quite steps in steaming excrement with more consistency than the American left.
Whitman’s campaign manager, Jillian Hasner, issued the following response:
“Just last week, Governor Brown promised he wasn’t going to engage in mudslinging, but now he is comparing Meg Whitman to Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Jerry Brown’s statements comparing our campaign to a propagator of the Holocaust is deeply offensive and entirely unacceptable.”
Reports that Jerry Brown has hired newly retired White House correspondent Helen Thomas as his press agent cannot be confirmed.
H/T to: Weasel Zippers.
Posted in politics | Tagged: California governor race, California gubernatorial race, Jerry Brown, Joseph Goebells, Meg Whitman | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010
When ObamaCare became the law of the land in February, the majority of Americans did not approve.
Not that it mattered.
Obamacrats knew what was best for the citizenry; and if you would have asked any one of them, they’d have told you so.
While conservatives, Republicans, tea-partiers and sane-minded Democrats (few as they were) unceasingly crunched the numbers to expose a sham of a plan that would all but bankrupt the United States – and ensure mediocre health care for practically all Americans – Democrats sidestepped the land mines of reality and transformed the debate from substantive to emotional.
As Republicans were going through the two-thousand page monstrosity to illustrate how destructive the bill would be to both the economy and the medical industry, Dems were ushering out some of America’s uninsured, presenting sob-story after sob-story, sad-sack tale after sad-sack tale, woe-begotten heartstring-tugger after heartstring-tugger, in an attempt to convince the American people that government-run mandatory health care was an absolute necessity before the bodies started to pile up.
Dems were countering cold-hard facts and analysis with syrup and schmaltz.
Ultimately, thanks to major Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress – and some last-minute vote-buying – two thousand pages of vastly unread government control became law, contrary to the will of the American people.
Welcome to the Obamacratic States of America.
Amazingly, Democrats truly believed that once ObamaCare cleared the final hurdle and officially hit the books, the American people – those cretins, those self-involved, unrefined, God-fixated, gun-loving ninnies – would turn their thinking around, see the wisdom in President Obama’s big-government vision, accept the price tag, and move on.
More than ever, the American people are opposed to ObamaCare – as well as everything else President Obama and his out-of-touch collection of retro-revolutionaries and college campus theorists have been doing.
Let’s summarize some of the highlights from Obama’s Big Book-O-Accomplishments: A Stimulus Bill that has done absolutely nothing except guarantee that money will be taken out of the pockets of the American people; an unemployment rate hovering at near 10%; a private sector that has all but stagnated while the number of government jobs increase; nonexistent leadership in the face of mounting international challenges (e.g., Iran, North Korea); the inability to do anything except deflect blame for everything wrong to the previous administration; the lack of understanding of the dangers of espousing moral equivalency (e.g, Israel and the Palestinians); the ineptitude and lack of leadership in not having the feds take control of the Gulf oil spill efforts; the capacity to transform the mightiest nation on the face of the Earth – the protector of goodness and liberty – into a bastion of weakness and appeasement; and his refusal to hear anything other than his own out-of-touch, arrogant brand of leftist crapola have all contributed to a Presidency that almost makes Jimmy Carter’s palatable.
Not only is President Obama turning out to be a gravely ineffective and embarrassingly incohesive, Americans now feel the first “post-partisan” President is anything but.
Of course, we all knew that by the Spring of 2008.
Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times writes:
One of the 2007-08 Obama presidential campaign’s changes that Americans believed in by the many millions was his oft-repeated promise to work with all sides no matter what and change the harsh political tone of Washington.
Good luck with that tired professed aspiration. George W. Bush promised the same thing a decade ago. That worked well for several minutes.
Well, Bush is gone and the majority parties have switched places. Now Democrats run the whole D.C. show.
And after almost 17 months of Democrat Obama’s White House administration, it appears Americans have given up on his promised bipartisanship, or even on less partisanship. It’s an impressive squandering of good will from his inaugural glow.
A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds 61% of likely voters believe the nation’s capitol will see more, not less, partisanship during the next year. Which includes, of course, the unfolding midterm election campaigns leading up to Nov. 2.
Michael Goodwin of the New York Post says that O just isn’t up to the job, writing:
The high point of his presidency came the day he took office. Since then, a majority of Americans has opposed virtually all his major policies and he has prevailed on several only because of large Democratic congressional advantages.
The problems are growing, but he’s not. If he were, we’d see green shoots of improvement.
Instead, the White House is going backwards at home and abroad and shows no ability to adjust. Like a cult, it interprets every reversal as proof of its righteousness and of others’ malignancy.
What started out as a whiff of rookie incompetence has become a suffocating odor. It’s hard to find a single area where Obama’s policies are a convincing success.
To be fair, one thing most Americans will probably be able to agree on is that Barack Obama is magnificent – unbeatable – as a campaigner. Indeed, he has been in campaign mode ever since announcing his candidacy for the Presidency a million years ago.
That’s quite an accomplishment, to be sure.
And with few exceptions, the lamestream media are still eating it up.
But many Americans – even those who rode the original Bam-o-licious disciple train – are growing tired of his baby-carrying, whistlestop schtick. Young girls just aren’t fainting anymore at his mere presence. And with each body of water he trods upon, Obama’s ankles are growing increasingly more wet.
The teleprompters are finally starting to get some recognition.
Still, no one – and this is hardly debatable – can bow to foreign heads of state and dignitaries like our own Bam.
Although Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could give him a run for his money.
Secretary of Defense Gates taking a page from the Obama Appeasement Chronicles.
Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Democrats, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: "out of touch", Barack Obama, Big Government, Economy, leftist politics, liberal politics, Obamacare, post-partisan, stimulus bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 27, 2010
Brian, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, posted a video clip from Barack Obama’s press conference earlier today in which the President did his best to convince the American people that his every waking moment is consumed with the Gulf oil spill. Reminiscent of the scene in The Caine Mutiny where Captain Queeg (Humphrey Bogart) sits at the head of the table in the officer’s mess and tries to convince his shipmates that he isn’t a bad guy – that even his dog likes him – President Obama recounted the heart-wrenching, emotion-drenched interaction he had with his daughter this morning while he was shaving.
It was as relevant as it was tender – as plastic as it was nauseating, in a “listen-to-the-violins” sort of way – and it shed a revealing light on the Commander-In-Chief, the man of the people, the One.
Said the President:
And so my job right now is just to make sure that everyone in the Gulf understands this is what I wake up to in the morning, and this is what I go to bed at night thinking about: the spill. And it’s not just me, by the way. When I woke up this morning and I’m shaving, and Malia knocks on my bathroom door and she peaks in her head and she says, ‘Did you plug the hole yet, Daddy?’”
If, after reading those words, you didn’t weep instantly, you have no soul.
And while Obama’s performance this afternoon conjured up a scene in a fifty-six year old movie for me, in Brian’s mind, it conjured up the words of another disastrous President bringing up the concerns of his daughter on the national stage.
Thirty years ago, it was Jimmy Carter, who said:
I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day before I came here, and I asked her what the most important issue was. She said she thought nuclear weapons.
If, after reading those words, you didn’t retroactively weep instantly, you have no soul.
By contrast, my own kids would probably be thought of as cold-blooded, heartless wads of selfish flesh since they’d be more likely to ask, “Did the President bankrupt the country yet, Daddy?”
“Will there be any money left in my paycheck for me to take home when I grow up and start working, Daddy?”
“What else is Obama going to take over, Papa?”
It’s interesting how Malia Obama asked her Dad if he plugged the hole.
“Daddy, did you plug the hole yet?”
To those paying attention, the answer, obviously, is “no.”
I heard both Janet Napolitano and Mrs. Obama speaking as recently as today.
(Feel free to insert your own punch line here).
Incidentally, it was gracious of the President of the United States to take the time to thank the literally thousands of people who have been working on trying to end the Gulf oil spill – everyone from first responders to engineers, from scientists to consultants – risking their lives, investing extraordinary amounts of time and energy, expending blood, sweat and tears to try and plug up the hole.
Oh wait …
Posted in Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "Did you plug the hole yet", Amy carter, Barack Obama, Gulf oil spill, Jimmy Carter, Malia Obama, Press Conference | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 26, 2010
You’ve got to love Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.
Well, not really … but his faculty to actually believe the things he says while continuing to live in exile from the land of rational thought borders on impressive. It’s one thing to keep drawing talking points and flaccid strategies from the ancient Democrat playbook. It’s quite another to sound as if your points of argument were hijacked from an underground leftist blog created in mommy’s basement … or from Chris Matthews’ diaries.
It is a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome on steroids … and the syringe is still sticking out of Senator Dodd’s tush.
The Senator was a guest on Don Imus’ radio program yesterday. According the Nutmeg State nut, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill can be blamed only on one thing: George W. Bush.
From Real Clear Politics:
When asked by Don Imus on his morning program if the Obama was to blame for lack of response to the oil spill, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) blamed the Bush administration. “Well, you know, they come into office a year ago with all of this. And so, after the last eight years,” he said.
At that point, Imus interrupted and asked if he has “lost” his mind for blaming Bush. “The President has been in office for a year and a half and they’ve been dragging their feet and even people like James Carville said that his behavior ‘has been at the very best lackadaisical and naive’ and you’re still going to try to blame Bush?” he said.
“To lay this at Obama’s doorstep, in light of years and years of regulatory permissiveness when it comes to these kinds of operations occurring — it didn’t occur in the last year and a half,” he said. “I mean, you know that as well as I do. You can’t lay this all at Obama’s door anymore than I can say,” Dodd responded.
That must mean that Senator Dodd places the blame for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks squarely on the shoulders of President Bill Clinton, right?
It stands to reason.
George W. Bush was in office a little less than eight months when America was attacked. Barack Obama has been in office sixteen months, and yet, Senator Dud somehow blames Obama’s predecessor on something that occured almost a year-and-a-half after Bush went home.
Using the Senator’s method, President Clinton practically commandeered the planes into the twin towers himself.
As far as the Gulf oil spill … thirty-nine days and counting …
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: "blame bush", BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Chris Dodd, Guld oil spill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 24, 2010
Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick
So, let’s see … the fantasy of a well-know New York Times columnist is that America, for just one day, should become like China. Whether that includes the denial of even the most basic human rights, the cultivation of organ farms, or the elimination of 60 million humans is unclear. Maybe the columnist, Thomas Friedman, only meant the really cool parts of China.
And it’s funny how an Obama dictatorship, as suggested by Woody Allen, appeals to him as much as it does, when so many like him are quick to pull out their Nazi cards in criticizing the supposed overreach of conservatives into our everyday lives. Whether that means that only the more appealing and family-friendly characteristics of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao would be harnessed by the Messiah is unknown at this time, but if nothing else, such thinking will continue to pass as intellectual and deeply nuanced.
And it’s funny how libs are quick to cheapen language by comparing the American “heath care crisis” to the Holocaust, for example. Or call those who defend the traditional definition of marriage as homophobes. Or come up with a veritable rainbow of “rape” to help regretful young women deal with indiscretions the morning after. Or call those who oppose Barack Obama racist.
In fact, to oppose Barack Obama doesn’t just mean one is a bigot anymore.
According to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Obama critics are almost at the level of “sedition.”
From MyFox Boston:
Gov. Deval Patrick says national Republicans are bordering on “sedition” as they oppose his good friend and fellow Democrat, President Barack Obama. Patrick decried criticism of his own governing efforts on Monday during a forum for students at Suffolk University’s Rappaport Center.
But he says that “seems like child’s play compared to what’s going on in Washington.” He said partisanship in the capital “is almost at the level of sedition,” or bordering on insurrection.
Mocking Republicans, he says, “If the president says ‘up,’ we will say ‘down.'”
Later, the governor sloughed off his own sedition comment, calling it a “rhetorical flourish.”
It’s funny how often Democrats have to come back and retract, redefine, restate or apologize for the things they say. Fortunately for them, all they have to do is say they were speaking off the cuff, or trying to make a complex point, or illustrating something that is far too multifaceted and easy to misunderstand, and all is once again well.
Just curious … Are conservatives capable of “rhetorical flourishes?” Rand Paul, anyone?
And incidentally, if the President actually said, did or stood for something that is consistent with our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, or actually behaved like he knew what was in the Constitution of the United States, he’d have more supporters from the right … and, for that matter, the center.
If the President says, “up,” we say, “you mean our taxes and debt?”
Does Governor Duval actually know what the word ‘sedition” means? Has he any concept of how serious a term that is?
Sedition, by definition, encourages the overthrow, or insurrection, of a lawful authority, like a government. It isn’t as serious as treason – which is the actual attempt to destabilize and/or overthrow the government – but it is the act of encouraging such an undertaking.
No one in the Tea Party movement, no prominent conservative, nor any Republican elected official – repeat no one – has ever suggested or hinted that Barack Obama’s administration should be removed from power in any way other than the method outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
As Hillary Clinton famously screeched: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. And we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
In a statement released a few hours after his comments were posted on Boston.com and other websites, the chairwoman of the state Republican Party criticized Patrick.
“Apparently our First Amendment rights are only guaranteed if we agree with the tax-and-spend policies of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama,” Jennifer Nassour, chairwoman of the state GOP, said.
She added, “the governor should focus on the critical issues at hand, like (lowering) property taxes and controlling rampant spending, instead of defending his buddy President Obama.”
It sure would be nice if one – just one – Democrat stopped making it his or her life’s mission to stand up and defend this President and do a little defending of the United States of America.
They would, of course, need Felipe Calderon’s permission first.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: "rhetorical flourish", "sedition", Deval Patrick, friend of Barack Obama, liberal hypocricy, Massachusetts governor | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 17, 2010
First of all, the H/T goes to the great Ace of Spades blog for bringing this to my attention.
Second, if I didn’t have four different projects in the works, a client list that is non-transferable, and a slew of obligations that preclude me from doing so, I would grab all of my stuff, throw it in a drawstring Hefty bag and make my way down to Alabama and find a place to live, just so I could vote for this guy.
I can guarantee the word “metrosexual” has never been applied to Dale Peterson, Republican candidate for Alabama Agriculture Commissioner.
As Drew M. at the AoS blog says: “Best Political Ad Ever.”
Yes, he used the word “illegal.”
Yes, he brandished a rifle in the ad.
Yes, he even scared the living daylights out of the trees.
The moment Mr. Peterson slung his firearm over his right shoulder, that was it for me. I was on the phone to U-Haul.
Luckily, the wife reeled me back in before I gave my two week notice.
Posted in politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: Alabama Agriculture Commissioner, Dale Peterson, Republican | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2010
It’s been played so much in recent times, handled by so many Obamacrats, that the race card must be nothing more than a mass of frayed wood pulp and lint by now.
From the party of tolerance, acceptance, character-over-color, unity, and plummeting poll numbers comes the latest appeal to potential voters, from none other than the Head Cheese himself.
Try to imagine, if you can, how fast the Reverend Al Sharpton would jettison himself from behind his cheeseburger to find the closest open microphone had a white Republican President, looking to garner support for an upcoming election, said: “It will be up to you to make sure the young people, Caucasians, folks of European descent, and men who powered our victory in 2008 stand together once again. It will be up to each of you to keep our nation moving forward, to keep working to fix Washington, to keep growing our economy, and to keep building a fairer, stronger and more just America.”
Arteries would be bursting in the necks of liberals everywhere.
The collective sound of millions of liberal conniptions would wake the dead and trigger seismograph activity across the globe.
It would be uglier than a surfboardless Keanu Reeves trying to act.
Thank God we don’t have to worry about such things. Thank God there is a Messiah “in da house.”
It is, once again, a Kumbaya liberal bringing all of America together (except those reluctant Limbaugh wing nuts) by breaking out that old tattered race card in the name of justice, fairness and whole lot of blah, blah, blah.
Everybody’s president has spoken.
And no, the Reverend Al Sharpton won’t be needed this time around.
And why not?
Because the President did not single out Caucasians. Instead, Obama appealed to African-Americans.
The President never mentioned “folks of European descent.” Rather, he kept his focus on Latinos.
And Obama did not reach out to men, God forbid. Instead, he was all about the female vote (i.e., the pro-abortion chicks).
Yes, the President of the United States actually said those words in a clip put out by the Democratic National Committee yesterday.
That’s because “fair” means singling out specific races and ethnicities. That’s because “just” means taxing the so-called “rich” – the job creators in this country – even more so that those who don’t earn it themselves can get it anyway. That’s because “stronger” means punishing those who succeed instead of trying to elevate those who haven’t (without handouts).
As Dems continue to do their best to label the Tea Party movement as “racist” and “angry” and “exclusionary,” it is the President himself who just cannot seem to free himself from his own skin-color and ethnicity fixation.
I humbly ask: Who exactly is the divider?
Has there ever been a man to occupy the Office of President of the United States (as well as the Office of President-Elect) who was less Presidential than he?
Hillary Clinton doesn’t count.
Posted in American culture, Obama Bonehead, politics, Racism | Tagged: Al Sharpton, Barack Obama, Democratic National Committee, DNC video, leftists, Liberalism, post-racial America, race-baiting, Racism | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2010
Remember when the President redefined the word “earmark” so that he could look back at the American people and say (in that smooth-as-Ex-Lax community-organizing way of his): “There are no earmarks in this bill”?
Remember when the President said he would be giving tax cuts to 95% of the American people (without actually cutting a single tax rate, mind you) when all he was actually doing was siphoning money from the wealthiest Americans and redistributing it?
Remember when this was going to be the most transparent administration in history?
Remember blah, blah, blah, yadda-yadda, ishkabibble, do-re-me?
In Barack Obama’s world, there are no parameters, no guidelines, and no standards that he does not define. He creates the rules as he goes along. He sets the terms of the game.
It is the liberal way.
Nothing is bigger than he. America’s future is endowed by its Obama.
If, for instance, he needs to say that health care costs will be magically cheaper for everyone by adding thirty million people to the insurance rolls without increasing the pool of doctors, BOOM! It is suddenly so.
If it suits him to say that the science behind global warming is settled, SHAZAM! It is settled.
He says it, so it is truth.
Take the Bush tax cuts, for instance.
Barack Obama, in a CNBC interview, said that America cannot afford to keep the Bush tax cuts in tact. He says that it is “perfectly fair” to return to the tax rates of the Clinton era. (See the video here, via the great Freedom’s Lighthouse blog)
No matter how you slice it, by definition, that is a tax hike.
Of course, Barack Obama will not look at it that way. He is simply allowing the rates to return to what they once were.
The fact is, tax rates will increase with Barack Obama at the helm. It doesn’t make a difference if those tax hikes are the result of new legislation enactment or allowing previous legislation to lapse. Tax rates will go up with Barack Obama steering the ship. He can shape it, explain it, rationalize it, justify it and manipulate it any way he pleases, but the bottom line is: Letting the Bush tax cuts lapse is, definitionally, a tax increase.
Of course, according to Obama, this action would only affect the “rich” – defined by the Annointed One as anyone making over $250,000 a year. They would see their Bush-era tax cuts lapse, because the President has decided that they can afford it.
The “rich” make enough money.
How can Barack Obama say that it is “perfectly fair” to return to Clinton-era tax rates when not everyone will be doing so? What is “fair” about it? Why is it that those who are the most successful – the ones who, in many cases actually put the rest of us to work – are being singled out? How is this good for America?
It’s Obama-style fairness: the push for equality, liberalism’s most important value. In Obamistan, it’s always best to bring those who are at the top down than to encourage people and create incentives for those at the bottom to go up.
In his CNBC interview, the President also said that 98% of “workin’ families” got “tax cuts.”
What tax cuts are these?
Does he mean the money sucked from the “rich” and redistributed to “workin’ families” to the tune of eight dollars a month?
Is he kidding?
Those are not tax cuts … but because he says they are, tax cuts they shall be.
The Congressional Budget Office officially scores those “cuts” (i.e., refundable credits) under “direct spending.”
When the President said, “I don’t think we can afford it,” it would have been nice if the “journalist” interviewing him would have followed up with, “You mean, like the bailouts and health care reform?”
Posted in Big Government, politics, Taxes | Tagged: Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Bush tax cuts, CNBC | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 5, 2010
This is yet another instance where a liberal myth – a provably false premise constructed by Leftocrat Lego slingers – is shot down in a fiery ball of ruin and truth. Like fairy tales and childhood air castles, liberal delusions spun as facts – and peddled as such by a compliant mainstream media – are soon crushed like so much garlic under the mallet of reality.
Indeed, liberals act as if their fractured theories and unsubstantiated claims about the problems confronting Americans – solutions that require more government intrusion into our lives – are accepted facts (e.g., manmade global warming). Liberals behave as if conservatives are the divisive ones when they are constantly injecting race and class into every argument. They are obsessed with differences, although liberalism’s highest value is equality. Ultimately, underscoring their never-ending assault on conservatism as an inherently bigoted and compassionless ideology is the reality that liberals are masters at projecting their own antiquated focuses, conceptions and biases onto conservatives.
The way it works is this: Liberals say something – over and over again – and it suddenly becomes true. Liberal conventional wisom is born from maddening repetition and weaned on the nurturing bosom of an accommodating mainstream media.
Unfortunately for liberals, facts often get in the way of a good hallucination.
This is just the latest smack down.
But deterring a liberal is much like trying to hold back a tsunami with a spaghetti strainer – or listening to Nancy Pelosi and expecting coherence.
It ain’t easy.
So, what is it this time?
The myth that Tea Party members are nothing but a bunch of right-wing, God-happy, pistol-loving, pickup-truck driving, racist homphobes (i.e., Republicans and conservatives).
In fact, a huge chunk of them are from “the other side.”
Sean J. Miller of The Hill writes:
Four in 10 Tea Party members are either Democrats or Independents, according to a new national survey.
The findings provide one of the most detailed portraits to date of the grassroots movement that started last year.
The national breakdown of the Tea Party composition is 57 percent Republican, 28 percent Independent and 13 percent Democratic, according to three national polls by the Winston Group, a Republican-leaning firm that conducted the surveys on behalf of an education advocacy group. Two-thirds of the group call themselves conservative, 26 are moderate and 8 percent say they are liberal.
The Winston Group conducted three national telephone surveys of 1,000 registered voters between December and February. Of those polled, 17 percent – more than 500 people — said they were “part of the Tea Party movement.”
“It’s a good sample size,” said David
Winston, the polling firm’s director. “It will certainly give us an initial base to follow where these folks are.”
Who would thought that 4 in 10 non-Republican Americans would fall victim to the charisma of hate, perpetrated best by such anti-unifiers as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham? Who’d have thought so many middle-left Americans would be vulnerable to the charming malevolence of talk radio and Fox News?
Liberals portray things the way they wish them to be – the very reason liberalism is a childish notion.
Posted in politics, Tea Party | Tagged: 40%, Democrats, independents, Tea Partiers, Tea Parties, Tea Party, teabaggers | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2010
New York City’s largest public employee union is DC37 – AFSCME/AFL-CIO.
On Thursday, an e-mail was sent out to city employees from the President of AFSCME International, Gerald W. McEntee.
For any of you who may still be grasping to the antediluvian fantasy that unions are all about fair and just working conditions for its members – and not about politics – a few choice lines from this mass mailer might help:
This is the week we’ve been waiting for — the week when members of the House of Representatives choose to stand with us or the insurance companies.
The insurance industry operatives and Republican talking heads you see on cable TV say we need to start over and spend another year — or another decade — before we pass reform. They twist the facts to say that the public opposes reform, but what the public really opposes are attempts to water down or kill reform to keep the insurance companies happy.
Yes, Mr. McEntee has us all pegged.
We the “public” are tired of having Obama’s reforms “watered down” and “twisted” by uncaring, profit-hungry, big-insurance fat cats.
It all makes sense now. It’s all falling into place.
It was also an eye-opener learning that “operatives” from insurance companies, along with “Republican talking heads,” are responsible for this rampant fact-twisting of Obama’s America-saving initiative.
Clever cusses, all of them.
Who, pray tell, are these “operatives” and what are they doing to “twist” things exactly? Reading the bill?
Have you seen them anywhere in the mainstream media? Are they out in the open manipulating the above-board and transparent attempts by Obamacrats to do what’s best for a deteriorating American population deprived of basic health services? Do these “operatives” have uniforms? Can they cook?
Did you also know that those who don’t vote to have their health care taken over by an entity that has been a miserable failure at running Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security will be “standing with the insurance companies“?
(That’s meant as a pejorative).
I’m sorry, but aren’t insurance companies part of a legitimate, free-enterprise industry entitled to make profits like any other – like “big education?” Or “big media?”
Did you know that the government turns down more claims, in terms of percentage, than every private insurance company in America?
AFSCME members like you are fighting the good fight and have been a critical voice for the past year in the health insurance reform debate. Together, we’ve made literally tens of thousands of phone calls and sent even more emails to our senators and representatives. The insurance industry has deep pockets and is doing all it can to kill reform — but we won’t let them win. This is our moment.
The bill that the House will soon vote on would end the ability of insurance companies to deny coverage to those who have pre-existing conditions — or deny coverage when you get sick. It would require insurance companies to pay for preventive care. It would also allow parents to keep their unemployed children on their policies until they turn 26. And it would end taxpayer funded subsidies to Big Insurance.
Are they out of their ever-lovin’ minds?
Why on earth would I – or anyone who wishes to use their basement or spare bedroom for anything other than supporting a child four years away from thirty years old – want my adult offspring to be on my insurance policy?
Where in hell does the government get the right to tell insurance companies how they can insure and whom they can insure?
The historic nature of this moment cannot be overstated. The opportunity to end insurance company abuses is a moment for which we have worked long and hard. It is a vote that will affect our children, and their children. Please take a moment now to contact your member of Congress. Tell him/her the time has come to stand up to the insurance companies. The time has come to pass health care reform.
The closing salutation reads: “In solidarity.”
But don’t get the idea that unions are in any way political. That’s crazy talk.
Posted in health care, politics, Unions | Tagged: AFSCME/AFL-CIO, DC37, Gerald W. McEntee, New York City Employee Union, Obamacare | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 5, 2010
As I’ve written here on several occasions, the best thing to come out of the Messianic Age is the exposing of liberalism for what it really is – the ideology of “government knows best.” Talk show host Dennis Prager coined a phrase that sums it up perfectly: “The bigger the government, the smaller the individual.”
The key here is that while America continues to reject liberalism, and while the mood and temperament of this nation continue to trend toward limited government, rugged individualism, personal accountability and liberty (i.e., conservatism), we’re not where we need to be yet. In fact, the only thing clear at this time is that America is resoundingly kicking liberalism (the Democrat Party) to the curb. Unfortunately, that doesn’t necessarily mean that people are racing over to embrace the Republican Party.
President Barack Obama has officially declared that there is nothing more to be said about the health care issue. The time for debate is over, according to his royal messiahness. He has spoken.
Of course, he hasn’t even read the 2000 page bill, evidenced by his preposterous commentary on Wednesday, surrounded by white-coated human props. And despite the overwhelming majority of Americans who don’t want this thing passed, he’s determined to move forward, because the only damn thing that matters to him is his legacy – the fact that he can say he’s done what no other president has done.
Pollster Frank Luntz – the Maharishi of focus groups – appeared on Fox News’ Hannity last evening, commenting on what American can expect if Bammy finds a way to ram this health care down our throats:
I will tell you two things will happen: Number One – is that everyone who isopposed to this will absolutely, positively come out and vote because they will feel like it is not only their right but their responsibility to send a message.
And two, you will see democrats defeated in places that haven’t elected a Republican since 1994. This will have such huge political consequences.
That’s what I don’t understand.
I see why Barack Obama might push it for ideological reasons, but why would Congress go along when their own jobs are in jeopardy, and their responsibility is to represent their own constituents?
Rolling back entitlements – and make no mistake, entitlements are precisely what ObamaCare is all about – is an extremelydifficult, if not impossible, nut to crack. (See Medicare and Medicaid). What federal government entitlement program has ever been scaled back? When has anything that has been enacted to increase government intervention in our lives been trimmed?
While I wholeheartedly concur that there is nothing that would be better for the United States of America than to see the Democrats nuked from their congressional majorities, the solution doesn’t end with just a numbers shift.
Rob at the Say Anything Blog writes:
Of course, just voting against Democrats and what they’re doing both in terms of policy and how they’re governing doesn’t mean Republicans have won back the hearts and minds of the people. If Republicans think they’re going to be swept back into office and go about business as usually they’ll be swept back out just as quickly.
No one wants to see cancer replaced by typhoid so that the black plague can move in after that.
By the way, if the President is correct in saying that there is nothing more to be said about the health care debate, why did Robert Gibbs – the greatest Press Secretary the world has ever known – say that Americans want the debate to continue?
Posted in health care, politics, Robert Gibbs | Tagged: focus group, Frank Luntz, health care debate, Obamacare | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 1, 2010
I don’t doubt for a moment that billionaire George Soros is feeling a touch unsatisfied with the first thirteen months of the Messianic Age.
It hasn’t exactly been fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies.
For Soros – and other lefties – it’s been more like intestinal polyps and impacted molars.
For one, the banks were never nationalized. Soros desperately wanted it to happen.
Second, America never “unified” under the new boy Socialist king the way many had envisioned. Despite Bam’s wish to be the “great uniter,” it never materialized.
That’s because the “rest of us” – the thinking class – never bought into it.
And thank God for that.
The word “unity,” in a political context, is only a gimmick.
It is the most disingenuous word in politics.
What Soros really means is that more people didn’t fall in line with Obama’s liberal agenda. That’s really what “unity” means when a candidate says it, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from – getting everyone to think like he or she.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about “unity.” I’m a “clarity” guy.
Of course, America’s “disunity” is not really the fault of President Obama or his widely unpopular agenda, accoring to Soros. Yes, it take two to play pinochle, but it’s really the rest of us that are to blame.
“He wanted to be the great uniter and he wanted to carry the country, sort of bring it together. But the other side has absolutely no incentive to do it. So it takes two to tango. So that approach has failed.”
I have more of an incentive to lick my fingers after manually cleaning out the bathtub drain than “unite” in the lobby of Club Marxist.
It is no secret that most of the country – a significant majority – does not buy into the Obamacratic vision of nanny-statism and intrusive government.
But, like Howard Dean, he’s making the barren-brained mistake of thinking that what has happened in places like New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts – namely the ass-kicking of failed big-government liberals – is a sign from the electorate that those in power are not being liberal enough.
But Obama “got the message” when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, a Republican, as Ted Kennedy’s successor, Soros said.
“I hope that, actually, now, he’s [Obama’s] taking the health care back to Congress and overcoming the filibuster — the 60 percent vote requirement,” Soros said. “I think that’s the right reaction. So he’s sort of taking a tough stance. And that may be the turning point. It depends on how he follows it up.”
It makes perfect sense.
The people of bluer-than-blue Massachusetts – liberalism’s uterus – were so behind the proposed government take over of 17% of the American economy that they elected someone who ran almost exclusively on being the “41st Republican,” namely Scott Brown.
Maybe the electorate was angry – furious, even – that Obama hadn’t proposed more of the economy being sucked up by the government.
Maybe this entire trend of toppling Democrats is America’s way of saying that they are sick of the free market, and if liberals can’t get the job done, they’re willing to punish America with a little infusion of liberty from the right.
At least Obama saved America from a deep recession or depression.
Seven billion jobs saved or created, I think the count is up to, as of this morning.
Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, Obamacrats, politics | Tagged: "unsatisfied", bipartisanship, George Soros, great unifier, Obama, post-partisan, Soros unsatisfied with Obama, unity | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 13, 2010
Senator Jay Rockefeller
If there is a question to be asked, or a comment to be made, it isn’t about what Senator Jay Rockefeller, Democrat, said about the President, but rather in what took him so long to say it – or should I say realize it.
It’s remarkable in that I haven’t seen this kind of open, in-party dissent and dissatisfaction in quite a long time – and certainly never with a Messiah steering the bus.
It’s bad enough for Bammy that with super majorities in both houses of Congress, he could not pass his signature piece of legislation – health care destruction – or his polar bear saving cap-and-trade bill.
It was a downright slap in the chops when Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid, said no to a “bi-partisan” jobs bill that only hours earlier the White House had endorsed.
But when a member of your own party questions your truthfulness and reliability – and does so in an open forum for the whole world to hear – it ain’t good.
Frankly, it had to be said … and Rocky was the man to do it.
The subject was West Virginia coal.
Senator Rockefeller was in the process of questioning Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, over coal carbon emissions, pricing, and the White House’s overall position on the future of the coal industry:
ROCKEFELLER: The President has a little bit of money in for clean coal and CCS, but not much.
ORSZAG: $530 million.
ROCKEFELLER: I know. And what that is equal to is one power plant in West Virginia – it happens to be the largest one in the country – cutting out 17% of its emissions, reducing the carbon down to 10%.
So it really is like not anything at all.
So, what are my signals that I’m meant to read? … we met with him yesterday, and he said, “Oh I’m for, you know, clean coal.” Then he says it in speeches, but he doesn’t say it in here … And he doesn’t say it in the minds of my own people. And he’s beginning to be not believable to me.
Isn’t that delicious? “He’s beginning to be not believable to me.”
Who says I don’t pat Democrats on the back?
What’s funny is Rockefeller’s use of the word “beginning.” Where has he been? Is the sodium pentathol drip wearing off?
I’m not sure what this says about the Senator’s ability to recognize and comprehend the obvious. He’s a Democrat, so sometimes it takes longer for the water to seep through the cracks.
I’ll take a “benefit of the doubt” out of petty cash.
But even more obvious than Obama’s unbelievability is the fact that the President has said, in no uncertain terms, that the coal industry must go, that he will bankrupt it.
“What I’ve said is we would put a cap-and-trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anyone else’s out there. I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap-and-trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, power plants that being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are placed, imposed every year. So, if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can, it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
Remember that little gem from the glorious campaign days?
Rockefeller is a politician’s politician.
Think of all the inoffensive, cleverly-crafted, side-stepping, gently-worded ways the Senator could have said what he wanted to say without calling the Big Man less than believeable.
Posted in Democrats, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "beginning to not be believable to me", bankrupt the coal industry, Barack Obama, clean coal, coal, coal technology, Jay Rockefeller, West Virginia | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010
Well, that didn’t take long.
I expected some sort of grace period. I thought there would, at least, be a reasonable amount of time allowed to pass before the President’s second face emerged. I would have guessed that Obamacrats would let the freshness of the President’s State of the Union words blur into our collective memories before diving back into the “politics as usual” pool.
That’ll teach me to have expectations.
Not twenty-four hours after President Obama castigated lobbyists in his State of the Union performance, saying that Washington needed to put an end to their “outsized influence,” guess who’s being invited into the Messianic inner circle with open arms?
Bob Cusak at The Hill writes:
A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union. The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”
The invitation, which went to a variety of stakeholders, was sent by Fred Baldassaro, a senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Business Affairs and Public Liaison.
The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.”
Another call … is on government reform and transparency.
The briefing on “government reform and transparency,” which was scheduled to happen earlier today, was not open to the public.
Frankly, lobbyists don’t concern me any more or any less than any other cog in the wheel of the Washington political contraption. It’s reality. Lobbyists serve their purpose as well as their masters. It is what it is. If I had a dollar for every time a politician was going to kick lobbyists to the curb, or do away with the “special interests,” I could pay off the deficit myself and have enough left over to buy waffles where the Obamas shop.
There is, however, the reality that this President is so far out of league and so out of touch – showing so much contempt for the American people and their ability to see right through him – that he absolutely has no concept of how to appear like he actually means what he says. Despite his raging metrosexuality, he would make a horrible woman because he simply hasn’t the ability to fake it. From saying his administration was lobbyist-free (when it provably wasn’t), to saying that the heavy influence of lobbyists on Washington politics would be a thing of the past – which is like saying the heavy influence of the sun on earth life would be a thing of the past – Barack Obama continues to act like he’s still halfway through his probationary period as a tour guide at Universal.
Why go through all the trouble of blasting lobbyists if you’re going to turn around and invite them to closed door meetings that the public is obviously going to find out about?
If, indeed, these “briefings” are taking place to let the K-Street crowd know that things are going to be different from now on in Washington – which they aren’t – why couldn’t the President have said something during his State of the Union like, “…And beginning tomorrow, the “outsized influence” of these lobbysists will come to an end as I usher in a new era of transparency with a series of briefings …”
He certainly could have handled it better – if not looking like a moonbat was on his docket.
And if these calls are not to serve the purpose of putting lobbyists in their place – and I don’t think there is an organism on the planet who believes that’s the case – then everything that came out of his mouth on the entire subject is a lie.
Not that it would surprise anyone.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, lobbyists, State of the Union Address, two-faced Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010
What kind of country does the President think we live in? To hear it from him, this is a nation of downtrodden, destitute bread-liners, without anything to look forward to except a benevolent government with a bosom warm enough to shelter them and a nipple large enough to feed them.
To listen to this arrogant disconnected President, one could only come to the conclusion that America is a tapestry of maltreated, exploited, disenfranchised victims.
I’ve got news for him: America is not a third world country. She is not a desperate nation attempting to feed a starving population. She hasn’t an antiquated infrastructure, nor is she saddled with nineteenth century medical care. We are not a nation in need of “hope.” I am sick of his depiction of the United States as a population of browbeaten, dejected weak-kneed whiners.
America can’t handle tough times, according to our President. We aren’t capable of toughing out whatever economic troubles are at hand. Instead, Bam is more than willing to spend unprecedented amounts of money that simply doesn’t exist to try and make it all okay now. He’s content to siphon more taxes from productive Americans as well as increase the burdens of future Americans – most of whom are yet unborn – so that this poor-little-baby generation can feel better today.
Since when has that ever been what America is all about?
I resent that my President has such a low regard for the American people. I despise the message he projects.
This isn’t a country of sad sack drifters and subjegated bread-crust collectors, as Bammy makes it sound. Rather, this is a nation of fed-up citizens who recognize that the coming of the Messianic Age has been an assault on their liberties and sensibilities. This is a nation that does not accept the notion that America’s salve and bandage is ever-expanding, cloak-and-dagger government. This is a nation tired of hearing about how the party in power knows better then they do.
Face it, the President’s performance last night was inelegant, priggish, and sounded like a metal wire might have been stabbing him in the crotch as he spoke. He seemed testy and sanctimonious. He was cliché-mad as he continued to speak about himself and blame President Bush for every wrong to befall the planet since taking office a year ago. He swore not to walk away from his health care reform push despite a nation that is decidedly against it. He swore not to pass on astronomical debt to future generations, despite the fact that he continues to propose hundreds of billions of dollars in expanded government initiatives. He promised the deficit would be cut, but his assumptions on what would have to happen for it to be so is more improbable than Harry Reid switching parties.
In short, he offered nothing – absolutely nothing – last night . .. except a whole lot of him.
Oh wait … and that bit about creating a debt commission.
A debt commission!
Is this the best he’s got?
The words “fox” and “henhouse” come to mind.
“Not that this administration – outside of me – has done anything to win your trust thus far, but I’m going to get a bunch of people together to put together a group of people to look into our debt situation. I can’t guarantee they’ll be tax cheats or Mao ehthusiasts, but they’ll be the very best that America has to offer.
Oh yeah, and George Bush likes to crush the necks of little, itty-bitty kittens…”
Why not just create the Department of Toto and Dorothy? It would be more productive.
The President defended every bit of failure in his first year with a whole lot of zilch, setting himself up for an equally sterile second year. For a man who said he was uninterested in relitigating the past, that’s pretty much what last night’s State of the Union was. He was painfully unpresidential and repulsively partisan. He even had the audacity to scold the Supreme Court for upholding the First Amendment.
Last night can be summed up as Barack Obama looking with contempt upon the American people asking, “Are you folks not listening to me? Do I have to explain this all again?”
Last night, he said he wouldn’t quit.
I wish he and his whole gang of prancing Obamacrats would.
Incidentally, how much Plaster of Paris did it take to fix Nancy Pelosi’s mouth in that “I have a pain in my colon” position?
Posted in Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: Barck Obama, State of the Union Address | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010
Actually, Barack Obama is very transparent. There’s really nothing cryptic or mysterious about him – except maybe his college transcripts. He is a floundering leftist without a single intelligible plan (other than punishing achievement and the free market), without a single accomplishment to speak of, and void of any sense of what it means to be Commander-In-Chief.
And those are his strengths.
His first year in office has been a case study in impotence and infirmity. Still, he is driven by an enormously overpowering, yet completely translucent, conceit. He’s grossly misread the American people, taking them for fools, assuming that his mere existence would be more than enough to push through his radical leftist agenda. But other than catapulting America’s deficits to unseen levels, he has nothing to show for his first year other than his flair for downplaying the importance of national security, and a record-setting number of rounds of golf.
President Obama knows that his big and bold plans for transforming America aren’t popular. He sees growing dissatisfaction and anger spreading across the country. But part of him truly cannot believe that his plummeting poll numbers have anything to do with him specifically. He is convinced the American people simply don’t grasp the reality of the situation (as he sees it), namely that he inherited so many catastrophic problems from his predecessor – perhaps the worst any President has ever inherited at anytime in history – that even his messianic skills aren’t sufficient to the task. Thus, he has abandoned his pie-in-the-sky, messianic aspirations (for now) and has fallen back into a posture of predictable, transparent desperation.
When all else fails, pull out the old standby: the anti-capitalist card.
Let’s get populist. Let’s go after greed:
Mike Allen at the Politico writes:
Reflecting his new tone, Obama last week announced a new fee on big banks by vowing, “We want our money back, and we’re going to get it.”. At a House Democratic retreat a few hours later, he said leaders need to be “fighting for the American people with the same sense of urgency that they feel in their own lives.”
In his weekly address on Saturday, he declared: “We’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run.” Saluting Martin Luther King Jr. in remarks to a Baptist congregation the next day, Obama railed against “an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise.”
I hate to use a hackneyed phrase, but you cannot make this stuff up. Deficits have never been higher. Unemployment has gotten worse under this President. The President is on a course to spend this nation into near financial oblivion for generations to come – and wants to add to it with his proposed government takeover of health care – and yet, he whines and cries about Wall Street taking the money and running?
What? Is he serious?
Who takes more money out of the pockets of Americans than the federal government?
Yes, Americans want their money back – but not back in the hands of the unaccountable, irresponsible, expansion-happy feds. How dare Barack Obama talk about an era of “greed and irresponsibility” when it is our government, under Bam, spending and spending unheard of amounts of money, putting future generations on the hook.
Can anything be more transparent than big government liberalism and the games leftists play?
Sure, blame Wall Street. It’ll strike an emotional chord with those who have been raised to be class warriors – those weaned on modern liberalism’s teet. After all, it sounds good to go after big executives, CEOs, rich people and other selfish pinchfists. Go ahead and blame corporate America. It sounds so right to slam big companies. They don’t care about the “little guy.” They only care about fattening up their highly-paid cats at the common man’s expense. Why not blame greed itself? It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Especially when a bend-over-and-grab-the-ankles-for-the-big-unions President says it.
At the rally for (candidate for Massachusetts Senator, Martha) Coakley, (President Obama) added: “Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty.”
Good God, Mr. President, is that really the best you’ve got?
“Bankers have plenty?”
What is he? In an eighth grade debating class?
Blame money, capitalism, free markets, corporations, Wall Street or George W. Bush all you want, Bammy; you are the reason the Democrats are dissolving like a graham cracker in a bowl of milk … and the reason the next Senator from the State of Massachusetts will be the Republican, Scott Brown.
You’re damn right today’s election in Massachusetts is a referendum on this administration.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, greed, Obama transparency, Obama's new fee on big banks, Wall Street | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2010
Sometimes, things just speak for themselves – like Hillary Clinton in a bathing suit or ketchup and jelly sandwiches. Sometimes the clever interjections and observations of even the most entertaining wordsmiths are unnecessary. Sometimes, things can just stand on their own.
Such is the case when a liberal fishwrap publishes commentary that asserts a mass murderer could win elective office over one of its own.
That’s when you know things aren’t so good in Honeymoon Haven.
The UK Guardian is as leftist as the management of the New York Mets baseball team is embarrassing. (If you don’t know baseball, trust me. If you do … right?)
Check out this web page:
Sure, George W. Bush was regularly compared to Adolf Hitler, but I don’t think even the most pot-soaked, sandal-wearing, maggot-infested, retro-hippie peace freak would have said that Hitler could beat him in an election … even with a Florida recount.
Posted in Elections, Everything Else, Obama Bonehead, politics, Polls | Tagged: Baracjk Obama, Charles, unpopular Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2010
It was supposed to be all about doing it for “Teddy.”
“This is the way Teddy would have wanted it,” we heard.
“This is Teddy’s health care bill,” they said.
“Do It For Him!” they screamed
By virtue of the fact that Chappaquiddick Teddy passed away last year, the health care reform bill – call it ObamaCare, PelosiCare, ReidCare, horse excrement, whatever – was magically supposed to be a voter favorite, a given, an automatic, “One More For Teddy!“
Unfortunately for Dems, truth has a way of creeping in and swiping the marshmallows from the Count Chocula box.
After being schooled in the cold-hard reality that the open Massachusetts Senate seat is not “Teddy’s Seat,” but rather the People’s Seat, Dems are being slapped across the chops with the latest poll numbers coming from the bluer-than-blue Bay State; and it doesn’t look too donkey-friendly right now. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may think that Republican momentum shifts are a bunch of hyperbole, but the poor lady’s caboose has once again gone chug-chug-chugging around the bend.
Only a little better than one-third of likely Massachusetts voters say they support Obamacare. In fact, less than half say they even support the job the President is doing.
Terence P. Jeffrey, Chief Editor of CNS News writes:
Only 36 percent of the Massachusetts residents who say they are likely to vote in the special U.S. Senate election that will take place in that state on Tuesday say they support the national health-care plan being pushed by President Barack Obama and only 48 percent say they approve of the job Obama is doing as president.
A 51-percent majority of those likely to vote in Tuesday’s special election say they oppose Obama’s health-care plan.
It still astounds me … What exactly were those who supported Barack Obama expecting? It isn’t as if his unabashed leftist agenda wasn’t spelled out in big bold letters and pinned to his sleeve during the nearly two years of campaigning he did prior to his anointment. It isn’t as if his big government, anti-free market approach would have been a surprise to anyone who was even casually paying attention. What is it that makes Bammy increasingly more distasteful to libs (and other children) who flipped the lever for him fourteen months ago? Is he not leftist enough? Is he too conservative? Does his shirt make him look too fat? Is his waffle-centric agenda too much for the pancake and French toast set?
The same poll said that those who said they were likely to vote in Tuesday’s election favored Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown over Democratic candidate Martha Coakley, 50 percent to 46 percent.
President Obama is scheduled to appear with Coakley today at a campaign event.
(I thought Dems wanted to win this one).
On one hand, to all of us who revere and respect the Constitution, this all sounds quite encouraging. The polls are overwhelmingly showing that Obama and his leftist game-plan is not flying with the American public. The notion that there might actually be a Republican Senator from Massachusetts in two days is about as mind-blowing as Joe Biden completing his sentences.
But in reality, it’s difficult to muster a whole lot of positivity. Keep in mind, today’s Democrat brand isn’t your typical, run-of-the-mill, big government variety. This is a new, screw-our-electorate-and-the-Constitution-at-all-costs kind-of-Democrat – a more frightening, more destructive, more power-mad hybrid than any before them.
Honestly, have Democrats given any indication whatsoever that they will, in any way, take into consideration what their consituents want? While all polls show that Americans everywhere do not want this health care bill to pass, none of that matters to the totalitarians-in-waiting.
If, for instance, polls showed that 100% of likely voters opposed health care, it still wouldn’t matter because Democrats are sure they know what’s best for you. Scott Brown could very well win that Massachusetts race on Tuesday, but so what? Will that stop Democrats from trying to finagle a way, no matter how far-reaching or outlandish, to get this monstrosity of a health care bill passed? Already anticipating Coakley’s defeat on Tuesday, they’re already threatening to follow the path of reconciliation, where a mere 51% of the vote will be sufficient to get something to President Obama’s desk.
Teddy may be rolling over in his grave, but only because Dems aren’t being slimy enough.
Posted in Democrats, health care, politics, Polls | Tagged: "conservative blog" "Roman Around", 36% support health care reform in Massachusetts, CNS News, health care debate, health care reform, Martha Coakley, Masaacgusettes Senate Race, Massachusettes, Obamacare, PelosiCare, reconciliation, RediCare, Scott Brown, Senate debate, Ted Kennedy | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 16, 2010
The horrific scenes of chaos and destruction coming from Haiti in the aftermath of the earthquake are as disturbing as any I’ve seen a long time. The country has descended into total bedlam. Reports of violent gangs running wild are abundant. Grizzly accounts of corpses lining the streets as far as the eye can see have become commonplace. No one knows who is in charge. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people are in immediate need of assistance, unable to get the help they require.
Words like “catastrophe” and “unspeakable” fall short.
The humanitarian response has been overwhelming. But the airport there is small and dangerously congested. There are at least a dozen airplanes full of supplies sitting on the tarmac with many more waiting on the grass with nowhere to go. There is no reliably functioning communications system and no real idea on how to coordinate the distribution of badly needed supplies.
The people of Haiti are desperate. It is difficult to imagine the situation there getting any worse.
My heart is breaking.
But imagine for a moment a Republican was in the White House. Imagine George W. Bush being the Chief Executive while the enormous difficulties in getting relief to Haiti’s beleaguered citizens were taking place. (Hint: Think about how the Left reacted to President Bush’s response to Hurricane Katrina).
Talk show host Mark Levin – the Great One – on his radio program Friday evening put it this way:
It needs to be said, and you know it … If Ronald Reagan were President, or Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford, or either of the Bushes, this would be an issue of race and politics … It would be said we’re not doing enough, no matter how much we do, no matter how difficult the circumstances, it would be said we’re not doing enough; it would be politicized; it would be called racism, because that’s exactly what happened with (Hurricane) Katrina.
No matter how much supplies we sent, no matter how much military went down there, it never mattered. And Bush, foolishly, apologized. And he’s still attacked for it.
Meanwhile, in Haiti – before we know exactly what’s going on down there – we’re told that the job we’re doing is terrific.
Well, let me say this … the men and women who are actually doing the work are terrific. But why is it that if supplies are stuck at the airport, that’s not Obama’s fault, but it would have been Bush’s fault?
I’ll tell you why.
Because the media in this country is so bastardized that they will take facts and twist them any way they wish to. And we’ll be told to focus –and focus only – on the desperate condition of the Haitians. Fair enough. But during Katrina, half the focus was on politics was it not?
I don’t hear Charles Rangel, or John Conyers, or Jesse Jackson, or Not-so Sharpton. I don’t hear them. I don’t see the liberal media, the anchors, going on and on about the failures of American assistance and leadership at the top.
And you won’t.
And I might add, you shouldn’t.
After Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast, it was utterly reprehensible to hear many claim that George W. Bush’s supposed laxidasical response had anything to do with the fact that predominantly black areas of New Orleans were hit particularly hard. Bush didn’t just react slowly to the tragedy, they groaned; it was his prejudism against blacks that caused more damage and loss of life than there needed to be. He simply didn’t respond with the same urgency he would have afforded primarily white populations, they exclaimed.
Remember that load of steaming excrement?
One positive to come out of all this is the fact that it may be much easier now to predict when an earthquake is on the way.
Check the thermostat.
Actor Danny Glover – activist, certifiable idiot – says that the Haitian earthquake was the result of man’s inability to deal with global warming … or climate change … or whatever it’s being called this month.
It must’ve been one of the six remaining polar bears known to still exist falling off one of those breakaway blocks of melting ice in the Arctic, hitting the rapidly warming waters with such ferocity that it set off a chain reaction that (naturally) led to the shifting of the earth’s tectonic plates.
Posted in Democrats, global climate change, Global Warming, Natural Disaster, politics, Racism | Tagged: "Double standard", Danny Glover, earthquake, George W. Bush, Haiti, Huricane Katrina, politics, race, Racism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2010
There are times when I do, in fact, wonder if medical marijuana has been approved for members of Congress on the sly. If so, Democrats must be suffering from every illness under the sun because all of them are over-medicating. In Lib-world, everyone is the walrus.
Heading up the “Glazed Eyes and Empty Head” list is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who truly sounds as if she’s just been dumped out on the street by the Twinkie Truck – or that she may be in need of better pot. Today, she said that whatever talk there is of Republican “momentum” heading into the midterm elections later this year is nothing but “hype and hyperbole.”
Jordan Fabian of The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room writes:
In a fundraising e-mail to Democratic supporters, Pelosi said that the Democratic agenda is moving the country forward and the Democrats toward victory this fall.
“Republicans are in full blown ‘spin mode’ attacking the President and claiming he has lost support,” she wrote. “But that is just hype and hyperbole. You and I know better — together we are moving America forward.”
Hype and hyperbole?
Like, for instance, the promise that “earmarks” will be a thing of the past? Or the promise that debates on health care will be televised on C-Span? Or the assertion that the unemployment rate will not go above 8%? Or the lie that two million jobs were saved or created by Bammy’s Spendulous atrocity?
Republican momentum is hyperbole?
Every single poll is wrong?
Maybe Nancy isn’t inhaling and ought to.
Madame Speaker, do the names Bob McDonnel and Chris Christie have any meaning to you? And how’s that “Ted Kennedy” senate seat looking these days?
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Nancy Pelosi, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: Bob McDonnel, Chris Christie, Democrat politics, liberal lunacy, Nancy Pelosi, politics, Republican "momentum", Republican hype, Republican hyperbole, Scott Brown | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 9, 2010
Conservatism doesn’t suffer from a lack of articulate, eloquent spokespersons. Talk radio is rife with right-sided pundits and raconteurs who espouse the principles of limited government and personal responsibility in remarkably entertaining and informative ways. Some of America’s greatest thinkers are conservative opinion columnists, proffering the greatest and most effective arguments of our time in support of a strong national defense, lower taxes, decreased federal spending, and far less intrusion into our lives.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party (conservatism’s traditional home) is much like water from a faucet in a run down Brooklyn tenement – sometimes hot, sometimes cold; sometimes murky, sometime clear. There are times when someone actually steps up and makes the case for conservative values – like when Senator Lindsey Graham grilled Attorney General Eric Holder on why the 9/11 terror trials are being held in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal, or when Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign (among others) openly called the constitutionality of ObamaCare into question. (It’s a shame that these are thought of as conservative values, instead of American values).
Then there are those times when even the most mild-mannered among conservatives feel like opening up a giant can of “Shut Your Damn Mouth” and pouring it down the throat of some misguided, wishy-washy, right-leaning yakkity-yakker until the larynx is rendered unusable – like when RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, took a page from the “How To Be Ineffective And Sound Like A Moonbat Songbook,” saying that he didn’t think Republicans could win in this year’s midterm elections.
Way to lead, Michael.
No wonder most Americans view talk radio hosts as the nation’s most influential conservatives, instead of – oh, I don’t know – politicians.
One of my favorite conservatives who “gets it” – and one who is quickly becoming a favorite of conservatives everywhere – is not a politician, if you can believe it. She is, however, the child of one.
These days there is hardly anyone who is as well-informed on the War Against Islamo-fascism (the correct name for the war), or as passionate about this country’s need to fight to win, as Liz Cheney. She has been very outspoken about the incompetency that defines the Obamacrat prosecution of the war.
On Thursday, Cheney spoke out again.
Robert Costa from National Review’s The Corner wrote:
“Over the course of the last year, President Obama has taken his eye off the ball and allowed America’s counterterrorism systems to erode,” says Cheney. “Brennan and Napolitano both said they were surprised to learn from the review released today that al-Qaeda in Yemen was operational. Napolitano went on to say she hadn’t realized previously that al-Qaeda might use an individual to attack us. Yet, in the past year, we’ve had three attacks on America from individuals with Yemeni connections — from the terrorist at the recruiting station in Little Rock to the terrorist at Ford Hood and now the Christmas Day bomber.” Thus, she says, “it is inexplicable that our nation’s top counterterrorism officials would be surprised by a method of attack we’ve repeatedly seen before.”
“The president says he’s using every tool at his disposal but he’s not,” says Cheney. “We can’t prevail against terrorists without intelligence. When President Obama treats terrorists like criminals, reads them their Miranda rights and allows them to lawyer up, he ensures we won’t get the intelligence we need.” In addition, Cheney says, “When the president stopped the enhanced-interrogation programs and revealed our tactics to our enemies, he significantly reduced our ability to successfully interrogate any senior al-Qaeda leaders. Intelligence is key. Let’s be clear: We’re not going to win this war through more intense airport screenings.”
Take a huge bravo out of petty cash.
She’s right, of course.
Something has to be done to get this administration out of Nobel Peace Prize mode and into adulthood.
They need to act like this is a war – a genuine, honest-to-goodness, let’s-destroy-the-enemy-until their carcasses-are-pulverized-into-a-fine-paste kind of war.
They need to act as if the enemy is really out there, plotting terror attacks against America – and not sitting across the aisle trying to keep health insurance “reform” from happening.
Perhaps someone ought to convince President Obama that the Christmas Day terrorist was an avid reader of National Review, listened incessantly to Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, was an anti-abortion advocate, believed that public displays of the Ten Commandments were fine, had a Sean Hannity coffee mug, and was wearing “I Love The Second Amendment” underwear when he whipped out his explosives on that plane.
You know … pretend he was a conservative.
That’ll get the old Waffle Man moving again.
Posted in politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: "conservative blog", al-Qaeda, Christmas day terrorist attack, Islamo-fascism, Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
Yesterday, the President of the United States once again blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for boosting Al Qaeda recruitment.
It is a devastatingly idiotic contention that makes him – and this nation – look stupid and anemic.
At the risk of coming across as an aimless bomb thrower and smear merchant, I truly have to believe that Barack Obama and his senses are no longer on a first-name basis. Despite rumors to the contrary, his ability to dabble in coherence appears to be nonexistent, almost mythical.
I sincerely mean that.
To listen to him say anything anymore is both exasperating and frustrating. With each syllable that bounces out of his pie hole, he embarrasses himself and weakens my country. With the world watching – and with America’s enemies feeling as if they’ve been left the keys to daddy’s Porsche – Barack Obama continues to master the art of clueless charisma, showcasing his inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the real world, reprimanding his own country for the creation of terrorists elsewhere.
It’s not about the bad values or evil deeds of our enemies, because Lord knows if this country only gave in a little bit more, peace could actually become a reality.
No, it’s Gitmo’s fault – which translates into being George W. Bush’s fault – that the “underwear terrorist” was this close to carrying out his mission.
I assure you, I derive no great pleasure in saying that, as a Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has earned a photograph next to the enty for “mortifying” in the Encyclopedia Do-Nothinga.
It’s as if the realities of terrorism have been annoyances to Obama, drawing attention away from his real work, temporarily derailing his Messianic train, throwing a monkey wrench into his Messianic machine, messing up his great Messianic plan. Such inconveniences, such pests these terrorists are.
As soon as he started talking yesterday, the stomach juices started gurgling in anger. My left eye began to jump.
How on Earth can the President look at his teleprompter with a straight face and effectively bend over like the noodleheaded wartime leader he is, grabbing his ankles for the throat-cutters and suicide bombers of radical Islam, and make the imbecilic claim that Gitmo’s existence is a “recruiting tool?”
This is an explanation I, for one, would love to hear.
Terrorist A: “Hold on, Mohammed. They’re going to be closing that Guantanamo Bay prison.”
Terrorist B: “Praise Allah. Do you think I can get my money back on these pipes, nails and fertilizer?”
Why the hell do liberals think they have the ability to transcend the space-time continuum and make terrorists see the evil of their ways and repent?
Wasn’t the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia a “recruiting tool” as well, according to Osama Bin Ladin?
How did that withdrawal work out for us?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement in which he specifically blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for an increase in the number of recruits into the ranks of Al Qaeda. And let’s say that the Yemeni division of Al Qaeda came out with their own statement saying that because of Gitmo, they’re recruitment numbers are up eighty-seven percent in the last twelve months. And what if Al Jazeera hosted a round table of Al Qaeda terror cell representatives from sixteen nations, and among the resolutions agreed upon is one that says recruitment increases among aspiring terrorists are directly attributable to the existence of Guantanamo Bay? And what if a petition that read, “You are right, President Obama … Gitmo has been our greatest recruiting tool. Love, Al Qaeda” undersigned by twenty million terrorists were presented to the Commander-in-Chief, notarized and framed?
Even if all of those things actually happened – and even if Al Qaeda opened up a recruiting office in the heart of Times Square with posters all over the windows and doors saying, “Thank you, Gitmo!” – so what?
What difference should it make?
Does the United States now take its cues from the enemy?
Apparently so, because the sad reality is, the President of the United States is closing Gitmo because it agitates the terrorists.
And he is not kidding.
Welcome to “hope and change” national security.
what is with the big belt, Mrs. Obama?
One can only guess the Obamacratic response if, for instance, Al Qaeda claimed tomorrow that US battleships on the open seas are provoking them to murderous actions. Or that American aircraft carriers are making their otherwise disaffected males jump up to join the ranks of the terrorist class. What if they said they were angered because we don’t do enough in this country to make Ramadan more prominent? Or that MTV drives them to slaughter infidels? Will an emergency session of President Obama’s Cabinet be called to discuss “toning things down a bit” so we aren’t so provocative?
Does the United States now take into consideration that which may or may not offend those who are at war with her?
Seriously, since when does the President of the United States concern himself with the feelings, sensitivities and concerns of Al Qaeda? Since when does the President of the United States have the audacity to blame his own nation for the actions of those sworn to slaughter innocent Americans? Since when does this country acquiesce to the butchers who would slice the throats of our President’s daughters if given the chance?
Honestly, I don’t get it.
What happens once Gitmo closes? Does Al Qaeda finally calm down a bit? Like they did after American troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia?
And if Al Qaeda announced that NBA basketball caused recruitment to jump, would the President suspend play? If the terrorists said that Rachel Maddow was to blame for the boost in new recruits, would he move to have Rachel taken off the air? And what if Osama Bin Ladin said that Michelle Obama’s big black waist belts were to blame for Al Qaeda recruitment increases, would Bammy lay down the law and tell his wife she couldn’t wear them anymore?
On second thought …
One last question … if the closing of Guantanamo Bay was so critical to national security, as professed by Obamacrats across the board, shouldn’t it have been closed immediately?
As it stands now, it could be two years (or more) before it actually shuts down. That’s a long time to compromise the security of the country.
Posted in Afghanistan, Evil, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Al Qaeda recruitment tool, Barack Obama, closing Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 24, 2009
When Harry met Nancy
The function of a journalist long ago metastasized from being one that reports what is happening in as objective a manner as possible to one who fancies himself (or herself) a kind of modern day crusader, desirous of righting the wrongs around them, revealing injustices, and saving the planet from second-hand smoke, greenhouse gases, God, and conservatives (quite possibly in that order).
Interesting is how the glossy veneer of the mainstream media’s troubling charade continues to remain uncompromised – amongst themselves. Their facade of impartiality is still foisted onto the American people daily, but because they exist primarily within their own forest, they almost always miss the trees. They distinguish themselves as straight down the middle, detached from affiliation, objective purveyors of whatever they deem to be news, ready to involuntary activate the “neutral” switch when the situation calls for it. (Recall the famous line attributed to theater critic Pauline Kael in 1972 after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory: “How could Nixon have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Whether the quote is apocryphal or not is irrelevant, because the sentiment, as it pertains to the relationship between the main stream media and the rest of the country, is spot on). Media bias is not self-evident primarily because the mainstreamers find themselves in a fraternity that is overwhelmingly liberal (i.e., normal).
The concept of mainstream media objectivity is certainly pleasant enough – much like calorie-free milk chocolate or world peace – but not very realistic.
Some can adhere to it.
Think of how the mainstream media would be covering this wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am health bill that passed the Senate earlier today if Republicans were in charge. Try and imagine the level of outrage and indignation that would be leveled at GOPers had a bunch of sweetheart deals been brokered for Republican pet projects in order to get this unread, unreviewed, two-thousand page legislative atrocity passed. How many times do you think the word “tyranny” would have been tossed about by the punditocracy? How often would the American people be hearing about “the least transparent administration in history” or the “cloak and dagger” way the President is running his ship? Would the media stand for it? Or bend over for it?
Now that reconcilliation is next on the docket, how, pray tell, would the media handle a not too far-fetched scenario being suggested by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, where the tag-team tandem of Pelosi and Reid all but thumb their noses at the process of trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference, sidestepping protocol, tradition and accountability? How would the mainstream media report on GOP attempts to breach every code of conduct, foregoing the normal process of coming up with a compromise between the two houses, so that a bill could be rushed through to passage without the opportunity for the American people to know what’s in it?
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes:
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn’t require the House to swallow the Senate’s bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. “We have to defer to the bigger picture,” explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children’s health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate’s version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been “cut off at the knees” but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way — without appointing an actual conference.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were “ping-ponged” — i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. “We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue,” said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn’t what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a “ping-pong” game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.
Now that the Democrats have got their Senate bill passed, just in time for turkey and mistletoe, be prepared for a cavalcade of lies about how “the American people want this change,” and “Last November, the American people chose to move in a new direction,” and whatever else they’ll say to stir the stomach acids of a bamboozled American public. Brace yourself for a whole lot of nauseating “blah, blah, blah” and gut-churning “yada, yada, yada.” Expect to hear the word “historic” a few thousand times, and waist-deep-in-the-fertilizer deceptions about how the deficit will actually be lowered thanks to the eventual passage of this disastrous bill into law. Get ready for dancing Democrats to find their way to every camera within spitting distance, sporting that look of sweet victory, claiming that the American people are the real winners. (Barf bag manufacturers might make a killing over the next few days).
It will be as disgusting a display as one could imagine – donkey faces all aglow in the fleeting hours before Christmas as they move that much closer to grabbing 16% of the American economy and crushing our liberties.
Merry Christmas, indeed.
There isn’t a device in all the world capable of measuring how utterly unfathomable and unAmerican Congress’ actions have been up to this point in getting this bill passed.
It is stunning.
The most transparent administration in history?
Posted in Big Government, Harry Reid, health care, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: 60-39, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, RediCare, Senate health care bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009
Building off my piece earlier today “Sweetheart Dealin’ Frauds” is the story of the Democrat shoot-down of Senator Mike Johanns – the other Senator from Nebraska. Yesterday, Senator Johanns asked that the Senate “strike the special carve-outs from the Senate health care bill” (i.e., get rid of the sweetheart deals).
There was a higher probability of seeing Hillary Clinton in the Penny’s catalogue modeling the latest in thong wear.
Nothing moves faster than Democrat lips saying “no” when their bribes comes under threat from pork smashers.
Said Senator Johanns:
There should be no special deals, no carve-outs for anyone in this health care bill; not for states, not for insurance companies, not for individual senators.
All of the special deals should be removed. If the bill cannot pass without carve-outs, what further evidence is needed that it is bad policy? No senator should vote for the final cloture vote until all of the carve-outs and special deals are removed.
Nebraskans don’t want a special deal, they want good policy. They don’t believe the Federal Government is the answer to every problem and they don’t like backroom deals.
This was precisely the point of my article earlier today.
These earmark whores couldn’t care less what is or isn’t fiscally sound for this country. They haven’t invested an inkling of critical thought into the matter of deteriorating quality of care. They’re not interested in the unprecedented financial discord that lies ahead for the country.
What else is needed to convince those who still support ReidCare that the bill is no good? What more does one need than to watch Senators fall in line only after they are bribed to do so?
Here are some of the goodies Senator Johanns was hoping to have cut out of the bill:
– Eliminating or reducing the Medicaid unfunded mandate on Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts (starting on page 96, line 9)
– Exempting certain health insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan from taxes and fees (starting on page 367, line 6)
– Providing automatic Medicare coverage for anyone living in Libby, Montana (starting on page 194 – section 10323)
– Earmarking $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” reportedly in Connecticut (starting on page 328)
– Giving special treatment to Hawaii’s Disproportionate Share Hospitals (starting on page 101, line 6)
– Boosting reimbursement rates for certain hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut (starting on page 174 – section 10317)
– Mandating special treatment for hospitals in “Frontier” States like Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming (starting on page 208 — Sec 10324)
Dems told him to take a walk.
Most of them ought to be home just in time for Christmas Eve pumpkin pie.
And what is the upshot of all of this, if there is one? Dennis Prager said it on his radio program today – that it affords Americans the opportunity to really see leftism in action.
The compassion, the hope, the promise of modern liberalism sure sounds peachy in the brochure, but once the Left is in power, those latent totalitarian tendencies bubble up to the surface.
Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Political Corruption, politics | Tagged: health care debate, Mike Johanns, Senate debate on health care, sweetheart deals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009
Senator Dodd - $100 million for a hospital
There is no question in my mind that many of the sixty Senators who will be voting to pass this monstrosity of a health care reform bill – and thus, voting to strip Americans of their liberty – genuinely do believe that what they’re doing is good for America. I have no doubt that a sizeable percentage of Senate Dems actually believe in their hearts – where all liberal policy-making emanates – that the government takeover of 16% of the American economy is a positive thing. Indeed, it is hard to imagine that anyone with a reasonable mind could actually look at this bill and feel good about its potential to live up to the fairy-tales Dems are peddling, but there are many who genuinely do.
Some of them get in front of cameras and burble about how critical it is to make insurance more affordable for everyone. Some truly subscribe to the notion that only government is capable of such a thing. Others cackle about the moral imperative in passing it – how it’s the right thing to do. Still others ramble on about this bill’s fiscal soundness and how deficits will actually be lowered over a period of years, blah, blah, blah.
Senator Nelson - Everyone else pays for Medicaid
Profoundly misguided as this group of Senators is – and as dangerous to this country as they are – these people are not the truly despicable ones. Indeed, there can be no doubt that passage of this who-did-it-and-ran bill would be disgraceful and immeasurably damaging to this nation. But those who really believe this unprecedented expansion of government and liberty-eroding power play will work are not nearly as contemptible as those who allowed their vote to be bought.
Two questions I used to regularly ask of man-made global warming zealots was: If the world was, in fact, warming, and it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that human activity had absolutely no role in it whatsoever, would it still matter to you? And if, indeed, rising temperatures are as much of a threat to the planet’s well-being as you claim, does it matter what’s causing it?
Indeed, the political game is played by brokering deals, shoveling promises, and bribing the fence-sitters. No can deny that.
Mary Landrieu from Louisiana scored $300 million for her state.
Ben Nelson from Nebraska sold out the unborn and made the other forty-nine states foot his state’s Medicaid bills.
Senator Landrieu - $300 million for Louisiana
Chris Dodd from Connecticut secured $100 million for a hospital.
But this bill is unique in that it is set to transform forever the American economy and health care delivery system on a scale no one could have imagined even one year ago. It is slated to increase government involvement in our lives in a way that has not been seen or conceived of before. It will, for the first time, mandate that Americans purchase a specific product or else be subject to penalties. It will promise fines and even jail sentences for those who do not comply. It is a bill that has been hotfooted through the Senate – a bill that wasn’t even seen by the public until Saturday of last week – so that some arbitrary Christmas deadline can be met. It is a bill that has garnered less scrutiny and discussion time than some railroad crossing bills have, yet it will seize for the federal government nearly one fifth of the American economy.
Two questions for all of those who were promised goodies in exchange for their vote: If it could be proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that ObamaCare would cripple this nation financially and cause the quality of health care to decline, would you then turn down the goodies promised your state? And if, indeed, America is really suffering from a health care crisis of epic proportion as you claim, why is a sweetheart deal necessary to bring you on board to fix that crisis?
Democrats, if I may … Is doing the right thing dependant on what you can get in return?
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Ben Nelson, Chris Dodd, health care bill, health care reform, Mary Landrieu, Obamacare, ReidCare, sweetheart deals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009
Senator Lindsey Graham
Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, wrote precisely what I was thinking about South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham: “For once I can wholeheartedly agree with Graham.”
It does sound funny to say, I admit.
To be fair, Graham was quite good – great, in fact – in questioning Attorney General Eric Holder not too long ago about President Obama’s decision (and make no mistake about it, it was Obama’s decision) to try the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in civilian court.
Obviously, it isn’t unheard of that Graham would say something that makes sense. It just doesn’t happen as often as it should.
For instance, on Sunday, he was definitely on his game when he said that the agreements reached with various Senators leading up to the passage of Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment” was the result of “seedy Chicago politics.”
Today, Graham was even better.
Earlier, Graham said that the deal given to the State of Nebraska in exchange for Ben Nelson’s support of ObamaCare (or ReidCare, if you prefer) may be Constitutionally unsound.
Susan Jones, Senior Editor at CSN News writes:
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) is blasting the deal Democrats made with Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) in exchange for Nelson’s vote to advance the health care bill.
In exchange for Nelson’s critical 60th vote to cut off debate early Monday morning, Sen. Harry Reid agreed that the federal government would pick up 100 percent of the tab for the planned Medicaid expansion in Nebraska – forever.
“Legally, I think other states can make a constitutional challenge,” Graham said in an appearance on Fox & Friends Tuesday morning.
Instead of negotiating in public, there was a back-room deal, Graham said. “It goes sort of like this,” Graham said, imitating Democratic leaders:
“What do you need, Ben, for this last vote? Well, I tell you what, Medicaid’s expanding under this bill for everybody in the country…Ben, what would happen if we let Nebraska expand their Medicaid enrollment and the federal government pay for it?’”
“Done!’” Graham said, imitating Ben Nelson.
Graham recited a list of things that are not fair about the Democrats’ health care bill – including the unfairness of giving a special deal to the people of Nebraska to get one senator’s vote “and not share that deal with the rest of the country.”
One can make the argument – and a damn good one – that Ben Nelson’s sweetheart buy-out does not pass the constitutional smell taste. The notion that one state should be singled out for non-emergency preferential treatment under a federal law (unlike disaster relief after a hurricane, for example) at the expense of other states might prompt some sort of constitutional challenge. In effect, the feds would be commanding other states to foot Nebraska’s bill for Medicaid. It might be enough to get some eagle-eyed constitutionalists wondering if such a thing doesn’t violate the tenth amendment. Maybe even the fourteenth.
Earlier today, on his talk radio program, Dennis Prager was speaking with Martin Gross, bestselling New York Times author of such books as “National Suicide: How Washington is Destroying the American Dream” and “The Government Racket: Washington Waste From A to Z”:
Gross: [The federal government is} now telling the states that they have to pay for Nebraska. All the Republicans have to do is have an emergency call of the Supreme Court and point out that it’s a “crisis,” and have the Court, within a week, give a decision. And the Court – unless they’re illiterate in a judicial sense – they’re going to say it’s unconstitutional to get Nebraska off the hook when you have a health care bill.
And the Republicans should do it very rapidly, get a decision, and the bill will be dead, because it is plainly unconstitutional. It violates the federal and state compacts of the Tenth Amendment.
Prager: I will pose this question to Senator Kyle tomorrow.
Gross: Good. Good. Good.
Prager: have you posed this to any Republicans in office?
Gross: This is the first time I’ve mentioned it.
Prager: With all your knowledge, you do not know of a precedent of a federal bill – a congressional bill – that isolated a state?
Gross: Never before in history. They’re giving [Louisiana Senator Mary] Landrieu the $300 billion because of the disaster in New Orleans. That might pass or it might not pass. But the Nebraska thing is a pure anti-Constitutional violation of the Tenth Amendment which specifies federal and state opportunities and obligations. You cannot take from New York and Connecticut and give it to Nebraska – not only for an emergency period – this is forever.
Another point of constitutionality could be in the fact that this bill requires people to purchase health insurance. Earlier today, Nevada Senator John Ensign said, “”I don’t believe Congress has the legal or moral authority to force this mandate on its citizens.”
And while there is obviously nothing in the Constitution requiring American citizens to purchase anything, ObamaCare proponents will fall back on the old stand-by of citing the Commerce Clause as its reason for annexing 16% of the American economy. (You knew that was coming).
What doesn’t the Commerce Clause cover in lib-world? It is the justification for everything leftocrats feel they need to be in control of for the betterment of the nation. It gets more of a workout than Tiger Woods’ wood. (Golf club, I mean).
And for those who like to use the requirement of automobile insurance as a means of validating mandatory health care, the comparison is painfully flawed. First, the main purpose of auto insurance is not – repeat not – to make sure drivers themselves are covered. It’s to make sure that other drivers are covered in the event of an accident. Second, auto insurance is only required if one chooses to drive. Third, auto insurance is not a federal issue. It is a state issue.
Assuming that a health care bill eventually does become law – after what will be, at the very minimum, a whole lot of screamin and yelling between House and Senate Dems – and these constitutional challenges do, indeed, make it to the Supreme Court, it becomes abundantly clear why it is absolutely necessary to elect the right people to the Presidency (literally and figuratively).
It is the Chief Executive who appoints justices to the Supreme Court.
If, for instance, the moderate John McCain would have won the election last November, and the question of this health care law’s constitutionality came before the Supreme Court with an appointee of his as David Souter’s replacement – a strict constructionist – the bill would almost certainly face the death it deserves … which it may anyway.
There is hardly a Presidential legacy more enduring than whom he appoints to the Supreme Court – except maybe that of government run health care.
Posted in Constitution, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Dennis Prager, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, John Ensign, Lindsey Graham, mandatory health care, Martin L. Gross, Obamacare, ReidCare, unconstitutional | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 22, 2009
Honestly, can someone please tell me what the hell Arnold Schwarzenegger is talking about? Does anything that comes out of his mouth actually make any sense to anyone? Does he really mean the things he says? This middle-of-the-road, moderate, squishy-in-the-center, all-friends-to-all-people thing has played itself out. It grew incredibly tedious about eight seconds into the post-Gray Davies era, and the whole movie star thing has long since become uninteresting. His brand of “republicanism” makes the old blue-blood country-club set look like a band of angry Pat Buchanans.
Almost a year into the Messianic Age, President Barack Obama gave himself a solid B+ when asked to grade his first year in office. He went on to say that if his health care reform plans had come through the way he had envisioned them, he’d have given himself an A.
Of course, that would have been entirely unnecessary. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took care of that for him.
CNN Associate Producer Martina Stewart writes:
Asked to give Obama a grade as the end of the president’s first year in office approaches, Arnold Schwarzenegger, California’s Republican governor, gave Obama high marks.
“When it comes to effort, [Obama] should get a straight A,” Schwarzenegger told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King in an interview that aired Sunday on State of the Union.
“He’s out there with tremendous energy and he’s selling his ideas. And he has great enthusiasm there. He’s a great speaker, a great communicator.”
The rice pudding I was eating just came up through my nose.
Obama should get a “straight A” for effort?
For what exactly? Attempting to dismantle and transform the republic? For spearheading the move to bring 16% of the American economy under the thumb of bureaucrat-rich government? For sending deficits into territory that even space shuttles fear to go?
And what “tremendous energy” is he supposed to posses?
His insatiable appetite to travel abroad? (for apologies, awards, and other citizen-of-the-world pursuits).
If ever there was a President who was, all at once, as dull and dry as Mr. Chicago, I’ve not heard him – and yet Barack Obama just can’t seem to tear himself away from the spotlight.
Is he exciting? Perhaps … in that thrilling-as-jello, teleprompted, in-over-his-head baritone sort of way.
One thing is for sure … He must be seen and heard … constantly. It appears to be his mission, seeing as substance was long ago dismissed as irrelevant to him.
And to whom, exactly, is President Obama supposedly selling his ideas? You mean the health care bill that the vast majority of Americans don’t want? You mean the fraud of man-made global warming (which Arnold buys into hook, line and sinker) and cap-and-trade? You mean the guy whose approval ratings keep falling like a stone?
And maybe it’s just me … but a great communicator?
I’ll give you that he can read a cue card like no one else, but out of the box, away from the scripts needed to keep him functioning, the President Obama talks in constant place-markers – uh, uh, uh – and well-worn platitudes. He’s not said anything substantive since asking if if he could be left alone to finish his waffle.
Governor Schwarzenegger has obviously been taking his cues from the master.
Settle down, Arnie. He walks on water, just like all the other messiahs.
Posted in Obama-Mania, politics | Tagged: Arnold Schwarzenegger, Obama gets an A, Obama's report card | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009
Yes, Senator Ben Nelson, the “Pro-Life To A Point” Democrat, sold out. Like the Joe Lieberman buy out, I suppose this one, too, should have been expected. If nothing else, Nelson has demonstrated for the American people – two-thirds of which do not support this bill – that there is a price tag on innocent human life. He has ripped a page from the Mary Landrieu Book of Ethics and Goodness in securing some Nebraska-bound goodies from the American taxpayer – with money we don’t have – by agreeing to ditch his principles (and I use that word lightly) in the name of political expediency.
Here’s an idea. Let’s go ahead and retire the phrase “pro-life Democrat.” Let’s throw it on the stinking trash heap of alluring words and sayings and set a match to it. Let’s toss it aside like so much salt on an ice-covered driveway. Let’s incinerate the notion that those who claim to be pro-life donkeys cannot be bought off – because they obviously can. Apparently, the life an unborn baby is precious and worth protecting only until enough sweetheart promises can be secured for one’s home state.
Most remarkable is the fact that both ends of political spectrum aren’t happy at all with Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment.” Both sides are looking at the same language and walking away with completely different conclusions.
What’s consistent is that both sides are pissed off.
Terry O’Neill, President of the National Organization for Women issued a statement today:
The National Organization for Women is outraged that Senate leadership would cave in to Sen. Ben Nelson, offering a compromise that amounts to a Stupak-like ban on insurance coverage for abortion care. Right-wing ideologues like Nelson and the Catholic Bishops may not understand this, but abortion is health care. And health care reform is not true reform if it denies women coverage for the full range of reproductive health services.
We call on all senators who consider themselves friends of women’s rights to reject the Manager’s Amendment, and if it remains, to defeat this cruelly over-compromised legislation.
Meanwhile, the National Right to Life Committee isn’t pleased either:
The manager’s amendment is light years removed from the Stupak-Pitts Amendment that was approved by the House of Representatives on November 8 by a bipartisan vote of 240-194. The new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion-related problems with the Senate bill, and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems.
… if the final bill produced by a House-Senate conference committee does not contain the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, NRLC will score the House and Senate votes on the conference report as votes to allow federal mandates and subsidies for coverage of elective abortion. Unless the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is included in the final bill, and the new pro-abortion provisions dropped, a significant number of House members who voted for H.R. 3962 will not vote to pass the final legislation.
The bill stipulates that states will be able to opt out of having to cover abortions.
And for those states that choose not to opt out, can you guess what happens next? (Roadmaps unnecessary). By golly, by gee, the federal government will pick up the tab. Thus, a pro-life taxpayer in Tyler, Texas, for example, will be able to fund the killing of an unborn child in Queens, New York.
Senator Mitch McConnell, earlier today, summed it up: “The bill includes permissive language on government-funded abortion.”
He also confirmed that Ben Nelson’s Nebraska is getting some “sweetheart deals” while the bill “imposes massive burdens on states that are already struggling under the weight of the cost of Medicaid.”
Senator Ben Nelson, I hope you remember how to type. You may very well need that skill once you’re thrown out on your ass come November.
Posted in abortion, Democrats, Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: 60 votes, Ben Nelson, cloture, Harry Reid, manager's amendment, Nebraska sweetheart deal, pro-life democrat, Senate health care debate | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 19, 2009
As midnight approached last evening, reports started surfacing via the news wires that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appeared to be very close to securing the 60 votes he needs to get radical health care reform – ObamaCare – passed in the Senate.
That means he may have found a way to win over Ben Nelson, Democrat Senator from Nebraska.
And that ain’t good.
Yesterday Reid spent most of the day meeting with Nelson – the lone Democrat holdout – trying to woo him back into the donkey fold. Apparently, the negotiations were quite successful. Nelson himself said that “real progress” was made.
It sort of gives you that warm and fuzzy feeling inside, doesn’t it? Like a coat hangar ripping out your gut.
Patrick Yoest with Dow Jones Newswires, via the Wall Street Journal posted this:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) appeared close Friday to securing the needed votes to pass sweeping health-care overhaul legislation, as senators shuttled to his office to work out a last-minute compromise on abortion … Nelson said late Friday after a negotiating session in Reid’s office that “real progress” has been made on a compromise and indicated that the two sides are looking closely at language aimed at bridging the two sides’ differences on abortion.
Reid spokesman Jim Manley said that Friday was “a day of long, hard negotiations,” but that senators “made great progress and are pleased with how the discussions have proceeded.”
Democrats sought language on the abortion issue that would satisfy Nelson, who previously sought language similar to that in a House-passed version of health-care legislation that effectively bars insurance plans receiving any federal subsidies from offering coverage for abortion for any of their enrollees.
WKOW-TV in Madison, Wisconsin reports:
Nelson has been seeking stricter abortion language and said new concepts he’s been offered may accomplish the goal of barring federal funding for abortion. He also reported progress on addressing his concerns over the costs to Nebraska of an expansion of Medicaid.
The talks were expected to continue Friday night and Saturday morning.
Dems want to see this monstrosity passed by Christmas Day.
In order for that to happen, a lot of things have to fall into place.
Later today – sometime after 7:30AM (after the Department of Defense Appropriations Bill is voted on) – focus will shift back to health care. There will be three total motions filed by Harry Reid – each one requiring thirty hours of debate time before a vote can be taken.
He is expected to file what is known as a “manager’s amendment” – a version of the health care bill that is inclusive of all the changes to the original 2000-plus page bill currently in the Senate.
After Reid files the “manager’s amendment,” it will be read aloud – something that could take anywhere from 10 to 11 hours.
From the time the reading of the bill is completed, thirty hours of debate time is required before the first cloture vote on the “manager’s amendment” can take place.
So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, the “manager’s amendment” is filed at 8:00AM this morning. The bill is then read aloud for eleven hours, which takes us to 7:00PM tonight. After that, 30 hours of debate brings us to approximately 2:00AM Monday morning. That’s when the first cloture vote is taken.
Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00AM Tuesday morning – the second cloture vote takes place (the substitute amendment).
Then, thirty hours after that – approximately 2:00PM Wednesday afternoon – the shell bill or underlying bill (inclusive of all changes and amendments) will come up for what will be the third cloture vote.
Thirty hours after that – approximately 8:00PM on Christmas Eve – the final vote on the whole deal will take place.
That’s the breakdown.
God help us.
Update December 19, 2009 – 9:52 AM
The Senate, as expected, approved the $636 billion Department of Defense Appropriations Bill this morning. That means the road to ObamaCare is officially open – and if there’s any truth to the reports circulating this morning, Ben Nelson has crumbled. Dems have got their sixty.
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, politics | Tagged: Ben Nelson, cloture, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate cloture votes | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009
Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.
I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?
The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.
Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.
The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.
As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”
An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).
We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.
Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.
This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.
It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.
In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:
If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.
Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.
“Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”
Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?
The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.
Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?
We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.
So what? What does that mean exactly?
If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.
And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.
Another thank you to President Obama.
If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.
I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: detention center, Gitmo, Illinois, national security, Obama, terrorism, terrorists, Thomson Correctional facility, Thomson Illinois | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 16, 2009
A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. That goes for Joe, too.
As President Obama’s approval rating continues to do its best anvil-falling-out-of-a window imitation, and with poll after poll showing the American people do not buy into the liberty-raping fairy-tale that is ObamaCare, Democrats continue to demonstrate that they are impervious to the people they are charged to represent. The American people do not want what Obamacrats are hawking, yet Dems disdainfully forge ahead in their crusade to sign into legislation something – anything – “historic.”
It is their arrogance that is historic.
Yesterday, Senator Joe Lieberman – often extoled by many conservatives as a political compatriot (specifically on the War on Terror) and a liberal with a conscience – ostensibly informed the world that there are limitations to his principles, and that, much like Louisiana Senator Mary Landieu, he can be bought. Now that he’s got what he asked for – the dropping of both the public option and the Medicare buy-in from the Senate version of the health care reform bill – he’s back in the fold.
Said Senator Independent, “I think what’s beginning to emerge – and I know some people are not happy about it – is an historic achievement: health care reform such as we have not seen in this country for decades.” Talk show host Laura Ingraham called it Lieberman’s “verbal flatulence.”
There are many on my side of this debate – which, incidentally, are the majority of Americans – expressing dismay, and even betrayal, at Lieberman’s apparent shift back into the Leftocrat womb (which, incidentally, he never left). I’m not exactly sure why anyone would be surprised by this. It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. He is still a liberal’s liberal on just about every issue. Dropping the public option, as good as that sounds on the surface, doesn’t make the bill any less government-centric, nor does it suddenly make it cost friendly. It’s a ruse. Indeed, Lieberman can gush about the historic nature of this debacle – comparing it to the “achievments” of Medicare and Medicaid, rivaled only by Social Security for their inefficiency and cost-ineffectiveness – but the fact is, once this bill passes (public option or not), 16% of the economy falls under government control just like that.
Insurance companies will be heavily regulated by the feds. A glut of new agencies and commissions will spring to life. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer describes what will emerge as a kind of “proxy system” where health care will essentially be run by the government through under-their-thumb insurers.
Lieberman, meanwhile, is trying to be all things to all people. He certainly doesn’t want to ruffle the feathers of his insurance company constituency, but he must also remain true to his social liberalism. Standing up against the public option is a nice bone for insurance providers, but the rest of the nearly two-thousand page bill appeals to his big government approach to handling health care reform.
He is no dope.
Health care delivery will belong to the federal government even without a public option. That’s why Dems were willing to give him what he wanted in exchange for his support. Leftists who are mad at Lieberman need to relax and look at the bigger picture. Good times could still be ahead. From a socialist/marxist perspective, if the bill is passed, it’ll still all good. You’ll see.
Posted in Democrats, leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: "public option", health care debate, health care reform, Joe Lieberman | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 11, 2009
Like a man offering his seat to a lady on a New York City subway train, or seeing Derek Jeter in a Boston Red Sox uniform, there are things in this life that just don’t happen. Like an Obamacratic White House invite to Rush Limbaugh, a liberal pushing a policy position without making someone out to be a victim, and finding someone in the Western Hemisphere whom Tiger Woods has not slept with, there are some things one just doesn’t expect to see.
This is one of those instances.
When George W. Bush left office eleven months ago, his approval numbers had dipped so low, he wasn’t even popular enough to be called unpopular. People on both sides of the aisle were sticking pins in their little George Bush dolls as the Messianic Age approached. A CBS/New York Times poll had Bush’s final approval rating at just 22%. His Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index dipped to -30. The man who caused more Hitler moustaches and swastikas to find their way onto demonstration posters since the days of the Third Reich couldn’t have left Washington quick enough.
With the anointment of Barack Obama, it became difficult to imagine a time when every magazine, newspaper, t-shirt, and button would not be about the new boss. He was everywhere – plastered to every dry surface, pouring from every orifice, heard from every corner of the broadcast media, and even had schools named after him before ever taking the Oath of Office. That his approval numbers would ever dip below 70% seemed as likely as having a national holiday named after Donald Rumsfeld.
But, my, have times changed.
In fact, almost a year into the era of Bamification, the percentage of Americans who would rather see George W. Bush back in charge is only six points less than those who favor Bammy.
Ben Smith from Politico writes:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama’s declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they’d rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that’s somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country’s difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.
What analysis of the failure of the Obama presidency would be complete without the obligatory, “It Was That Way When I Got Here” approach.
Still, regardless of how the house looked when Obama moved in, his “pointing the finger” routine is wearing thin with the American people. They’re not buying his “Everything Wrong With the Earth is due to George Bush” nonsense anymore. Obama’s astronomical spending spree and deficit escalation has made the idiotic stimulus checks sent out by Bush in 2008 look like a tax cut.
And while there was plenty I openly opposed President Bush on – illegal immigration, TARP, entitlement increases – he was no socialist. He was a terrific wartime leader, an honorable man, a good man, the antithesis of Barack Obama on many levels – hence, the closing gap between one who couldn’t even garner one quarter support of his own nation a year ago and a Messiah from Chicago.
Posted in George W. Buah, politics, Polls | Tagged: 44% prefer Bush over Obama, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Obama buyer's remorse, Obama poll numbers, Obama's slipping popularity, Rather have Bush than Obama | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 8, 2009
Rush Limbaugh has called him the greatest White House Press Secretary in the history of this nation. Robert Gibbs may, indeed, be the brightest, most astute homo sapien – outside of President Obama – ever to take in air at the White House (and he’ll probably tell you so), but I’ve always found it difficult to slap a “greatest ever” label on him. Sure, over the last ten years, I’d probably rank him somewhere among the top six or seven White House press secretaries we’ve had, but the number one slot was a tough one to agree to … that is, until today. I now humbly concede that he may be the greatest press secretary of any house – white or otherwise – in all of recorded human history.
It’s hard to comprehend that Robert Gibbs – a man who exudes condescension, radiates arrogance, and reeks of superiority – could out spike himself on the superciliousness meter, but he has. Recall last week when Gibbs chastised a reporter, April Ryan – who was actually doing her job when she queried Gibbs about whether or not White House Social Secretary Desiree Rogers invited herself to the White House state dinner two weeks ago. She kept at him until her frustration started to show. The payoff came when Gibbs told her she needed to calm down. He said she was throwing a temper tantrum, much like his son is wont to do sometimes.
Lucky for him, the slope of his nose is at the perfect angle so as not to be a strain on his eyes when he peers down it’s regal slant to exchange words with the peasants.
However, as tasty as his exchange with Ms. Ryan was, it wasn’t until today that he finally won me over.
With the president’s approval numbers slipping to a paltry 47% in the Gallup Daily Tracking Poll – one of lowest first-year December approval ratings for a president in recent history – Gibbs was asked to comment .
I tell you, if I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I’d visit my doctor … If you look back, I think five days ago, there was an 11-point spread, now there’s a 1-point spread. I mean, I’m sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don’t put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend.
A six-year old with a crayon?
He couldn’t just say that the White House doesn’t put a lot of stock in polls? He couldn’t muster just a touch of dignity and say that polls are not this administration’s biggest concern? Did he have to go through the whole “EKG” analogy to make his childish point? Was it necessary to call the work of Gallup something a six-year old might come up with?
And is everybody at this White House a damn narcissist? Note how Gibbs said he doesn’t put a lot of stake in polls … and never has.
It was a classic case of taking a gun to the messenger while dismissing what’s in his carry bag.
The sad thing is … he is probably telling the truth. The White House doesn’t give a damn about the polling numbers. If they did, they wouldn’t be trapsing down the liberty-destroying path they’re on.
Posted in Obamacrats, politics, Robert Gibbs | Tagged: "six year old with a crayon", April Ryan, Gallup Tracking Poll, Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 8, 2009
If not for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and any other “ism” or “phobia” they can exploit, exactly what points of argument would liberals ever use to defend their positions? If the issue cannot be compared to some social injustice of the past, or if the policy cannot be framed around tapping into the raw emotions of constituents, or if the opposition cannot be marginalized and characterized as the spawns of Satan, how would liberals ever be able to convince anyone of anything?
To say that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is beneath dignity is to assume he possesses any – and I’m not prepared to make that leap. The man is a veritable fountain of imbecility, never once failing to prove the point when afforded the opportunity. Even if he never spoke another foolish word, he has long since removed all doubt.
But speak he did from the Senate floor yesterday morning – with an inflection of numbskullery that would make Joe Biden proud.
With the prowess and grace of a can of mushroom soup, and a command of history rivaled by only Congressman Alan “Our Healthcare System is like a Holocaust” Grayson of Florida, Senator Reid said that Republicans who oppose ObamaCare are modern day versions of those who opposed abolishing slavery and affording women the right to vote.
He didn’t go as far as calling GOPers baby rapists, but Reid’s time on floor was limited.
From The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Jordan Fabian writes:
“Folks tend to crack under pressure,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) at a press conference. “It is an indication of desperation.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said he was “personally offended” by the remarks that were “beneath the dignity of the Majority Leader…and the Senate.”
Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman John Thune (S.D.) called the comments “inflammatory and irresponsible.”
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Reid said “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right.”
He continued “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough’ … He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.”
Whether he was trying to be clever by delivering a well-cadenced, “themed” commentary about the infamous “slow downs” of history – his pitiful, weasel-like attempt at a mini “I Have A Dream” missive – or whether he was just “winging it” around some loose index card scribblings, his asininity is epic.
That he could speak as clearly as he did with both feet firmly ensconced in his mouth is the real story here.
Surely Mr. Reid is aware that more Democrats, as a percentage, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Republicans. Surely Mr. Reid is aware that the Republican Party was the anti-slavery party. (More on this history in a moment).
But far more relevant than that is the absolute absurdity in trying to compare the concern of American citizens who oppose – or at least question – the concept of revamping the entire health care delivery system to those who enslaved other human beings. It is inconceivable that any clear thinking human being could draw such a comparison in good conscience. The notion that Americans who worry about costs, or who are concerned about the decline in quality of health care, or are wary about the government seizing far too much power, is akin to owning other human beings and denying them their basic human rights is contemptible.
According to Reid, simply by virtue of the legislation being a “health care” bill, it should be reflexively supported by the American people, no questions asked.
The irony is … health care reform, as Reid sees it, creates an unprecedented level of servitude to the federal government.
Recall the famous screeching screed of Senator Hillary Clinton exclaiming how everyone has the right to debate and disagree with any administration, regardless of who they are. (It’s a sound bite well played on talk radio, annoying as it is). That’s all well and good, of course, but when conservatives do it, it somehow harkens back to a time of lynchings and whippings.
But returning to history for a moment … Through the middle of the twentieth century, segregationists overwhelmingly voted Democratic – and that includes four election victories for the patriarch of quintessential modern liberalism, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. University types conveniently ignore this long standing “relationship” of racism and political ideology – that is, until white Southerners began voting Republican in the 1960s. Suddenly, such connections mattered. To academia, the affiliation between racism and liberalism was nothing more than sheer coincidence prior to the 1960s, but once the GOP began drawing Southern whites, the connection somehow became obvious and worthy of mentioning.
Incidentally, I happen to agree that early twentieth-century Roosevelt liberalism was not inherently or philosophically tied to the racism that permeated the Democrat Party (especially in the South).
Precisely my point.
Through the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s, as the Democrat Party continued to shift more blatantly leftward, older segregationists were, in essence, forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in terms of party affiliation. Theirs was a weakening coalition anyway – certainly not strong enough to form a third party – so their leanings, in the absence of anything better, tended toward more race-neutral politics and smaller government.
The Democrat Party, meanwhile, was reinventing itself, becoming the anti-war, big government, welfare party. Liberals were, among other things, promoting abortion rights, bussing and affirmative action.
Many middle class Americans didn’t like what they were hearing from Democrats and began jumping ship – and not just in the South either.
It wasn’t until the 1980s that most white southerners actually identified themselves as Republicans. And it wasn’t until a decade later when Republicans finally held most House seats in the South.
That the decline of racism – particularly in the South – coincides with the steady rise of Republican affiliation is, to say the least, most interesting.
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: civil rights, government run health care, Harry Reid, health care reform, Obamacare, Racism, Senate debate on health care, Slavery, suffrage | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 3, 2009
Democrats are clearly fed up. The time has come for them to let it be known that something must be done … and now! The “job creation” thing really hasn’t worked out for them (not counting the billions and billions of new jobs created by the Stimulus Package), and the fact that over three million jobs have actually been lost since the ushering in of the Messianic Age – along with a nearly three point spike in unemployment – these are difficult times for donkeys.
So what does a political party with control of the White House and both houses of Congress do when they still cannot get things done their way?
They protest themselves, of course.
Jessica Yellin, CNN National Political Correspondent, writes:
Congressman Bobby Rush
Members of President Obama’s own political party are charging that the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership are not doing enough to help the unemployed and are threatening to organize a march on Washington of jobless Americans.
“Obviously there’s something that’s not getting through to them,” said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois. “And we’re going to let the White House and everybody who’s concerned know that we have got people in our districts who are depending on us to deliver for them.”
Rush and Reps. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Candice Miller, R-Michigan, chair the new Congressional “Jobs Now Caucus,” which is comprised of 112 Democrats and 17 Republicans.
Of course, the “everybody concerned” that Congressman Rush is referring to includes himself, his Democrat colleagues and President Obama.
The real question is: Will his pleas fall on his own deaf ears? Or will he finally pay attention … to himself?
It is clear that he and his colleagues are damn serious about this because they’ve created a brand new “caucus.”
Unemployment, look out.
It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall during the genesis of the idea to organize a march against themselves:
Kaptur: What can we do, Bobby? We really suck.
Rush: Hmm … Hey, I know! Let’s do a protest!
Kaptur: Wow! Sounds great! But against ourselves, Bobby?
Rush: You get the markers, I’ll get the poster board. To the mall!
Meanwhile, just for good measure, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, issued this predictable statement:
“We continue to work with all members of the caucus and with the Administration to build on the recovery package and other initiatives to help create jobs and grow our economy after years of mismanagement by the Bush administration.”
In other news, Democrats are still clueless.
Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, politics, Unemployment | Tagged: "Jobs Now Caucus", Congressman Bobby Rush, Unemployment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009
235 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan to date – 98 this year alone. Support for the war in Afghanistan continues to drop among Brits, and according to British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth, the reason can be summed up in two words: Barack Obama.
In ten-plus months of stunning, history-book rewriting governance, it has become clear that unless one is a tyrant, a totalitarian or a terrorist, President Obama really isn’t all that interested in diplomacy. In fact, it’s quite unlikely that even an Obama patented classic groveling bow before Gordon Brown (or Sir Paul McCartney) could make things better between the two long-time allies.
While President Obama continued, even this week, to valiantly blame every thing wrong with America – including the war in Afghanistan – on eight years of George W. Bush, Ainsworth pointed his finger at Obama.
James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden of the UK Telegraph write:
Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.
A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.
Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.
The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.
Some who have lauded Obama’s thoughtfulness and deliberateness in coming up with a plan of action for Afghanistan claim that those who criticize his “dithering” are ill-informed partisans hell-bent on finding fault with anything he does. Bammy supporters argue that additional troops would not have been available for deployment until January anyway (according to a “senior US defense official”) so the “dithering” issue is largely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest.
But it’s a silly argument.
Whether or not troops are ready to deploy today has nothing to do with whether or not a course of action can be devised. Troop availability today has no bearing on whether or not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces can formulate a war strategy.
The argument isn’t even logical.
For example, people regularly make plans and devise strategies for their futures by setting goals (buying a house, a car, saving for a child’s education, etc.), and almost always when the funds to make those goals a reality are not in hand.
Considering the speed with which the President embarked on his multi-trillion dollar spending sprees, it’s difficult to lend legitimacy to the “Obama is just being contemplative” argument. After all, the President is obviously more than willing to increase government spending to unprecedented levels without having the funds “in hand” to do so.
So, if troops were ready to deploy today, President Obama would have already come up with a plan?
Anyone who believes that, stand on his head.
All deployments take time to organize. All battle plans need preparation. Military commanders have already hinted that it could take several months to get new troops in the pipeline. But the plan must first exist.
There is nothing in waiting months and months to announce a strategy that bodes well for Obama on this score.
And if, for the sake of argument, Obama’s dithering actually was based on the fact that additional troops would not be available until January, wouldn’t he – or any of his dancing Obamacrats – have cited it endlessly it as a reason for the prolonged delay? Wouldn’t the mainstream media, ever quick to give the President the benefit of any doubt, have beaten that excuse to death by now?
Ten months in, and everything is still George W. Bush’s fault.
It isn’t as if Obama is averse to passing the buck … or bowing to it.
Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.
Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committe in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.
He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.
“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.
“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”
The President is having a difficult time convincing anybody that he takes the war in Afghanistan seriously.
Ainsworth – the first British minister to publicly speak up against Obama’s turtle-paced approach to prosecuting the war – is clearly not happy.
A set of holiday DVDs presented in a festive gift case ought to put him straight.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan War, Afghanistan war strategy, Bob Ainsworth, General McChrystal, Obama, Obama dithering, Obama war decision | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 22, 2009
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - the $300 million baby
A little perspective, please.
Don’t let the left’s seizure of the word “historic” after last night’s vote in the Senate convince you that it was anything more than routine. Last night’s 60-39 vote was not historic. It did not make government-run health care a reality. It was nothing more than a procedural vote allowing the matter of health care reform to be formally discussed on the floor of the Senate after Thanksgiving. I’m not even sure that there were many who actually believed that it wouldn’t muster sixty votes. ($300 million can buy alot).
Face it, last night’s vote really wasn’t one that Republicans could win anyway. Did anyone really think that any Democrat was going to deny anyone in their own party the opportunity to talk about this on the Senate floor?
It simply wasn’t as critically earth-shattering as many have made it out to be.
Certainly, I didn’t like it one bit. Indeed, it would have been a pleasant surprise had the winning side fallen short of sixty, but I didn’t expect it to.
One thing is certain: The ultimate passage of this bill would be a disaster for the United States of America. It must be stopped. There is still time. But last night’s vote, to be quite honest, was being built up far more than it needed to be.
The process has only just begun.
More disturbing, however, was some of the commentary from Democrats.
Just before the vote, Senator Chris Dodd spoke of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, saying it would pay Kennedy the highest compliment of all if they were able to fulfill “that quest of achieving the goal that all Americans aspire for, and that is a national health care plan that serves every one of our citizens.”
“Every one of our citizens?”
Hmmm … Call me unnuanced, but that smells an awful lot like government-run health care, doesn’t it?
And of course, Harry Reid himself said, ”Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation – indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever faced – whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.”
He’d be almost adorable if he wasn’t so frightfully irritaing.
The Senate Majority Leader obviously believes that the federal government can legislate immortality. Death can be prevented? And all it takes is a merely “decent” health care bill? That’s quite incredible. What if it were a “fantastic” health care bill? Or a “sensational” health care bill? Would they also have the power to bring back the dead and make them well again?
Or maybe Reid meant to say that the fear of illness and death can be prevented.
So, if the Senate passes this bill, and it is eventually signed into law, no one will be afraid anymore? No one will fear death? That which has plagued humanity since its inception – the fear of death – will be erradicated by passing a “decent” health care bill?
Why didn’t we elect a Messiah sooner?
And by the way … nice job, Senator Landrieu. $300 million is a nice chunk of change.
You go girl.
Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: 60-39, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate vote | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009
Someone ought to get MSNBC’S Chris Matthews a towel … or a cigarette. His incessant gushing over everything the President does and says is going to leave a nasty stain on the carpet. Perhaps a sedative, or one of Keith Olbermann’s famous back rubs, would help. That Matthews’ legs have not been rendered lame from all of the thrills running up them is, in a word, miraculous. If he hasn’t already had an accident on the set, it’s only a matter of time.
Indeed, his viewership may be the only thing dropping quicker than the President’s poll numbers – or the New York Jets’ season – but every once in a while, Matthews can offer a unique touch of insight.
And so it was that on his show Hardball – yes, it is still on the air – Chris Matthews offered an actual criticism of Barack Obama.
With the President’s poll numbers falling off the table, Matthews asked his viewer(s) to consider the possibility that President Obama is just too smart for his own good.
President Obama has his chin out there on just about every hot issue out there: health care, terror trials, job losses, even the breast cancer report. He’s exposed and vulnerable. His poll numbers are dropping. Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese Emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? Who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City?
Yes, of course.
It should have been obvious, but I chose not to see it. My ideological blinders have kept me from weighing the possibility that the rest of us are simply not cerebral enough to keep up with him.
He is that He is.
Barack Obama is too much of an intellectual. It is his “eggheadedness” that has caused his numbers to slip. You can hardly blame him for not being able to mingle academically with the non-water walkers of America.
Matthews, again, leads the way.
Incidentally, the answers to Matthews’ questions are, in order:
– Not in your wildest dreams.
– Only if he dips his face into a quiche.
– Because, as a liberal, his goal is to present America as weak and vulnerable.
– Because his ability to pick friends, mentors and associates of character is on par with his ability speak coherently free of teleprompters.
– Because once he does, he owns it, and he can’t use George W. Bush as an excuse any longer – although, he will.
– Only those people who can never, ever, ever, ever, ever be trusted with national security – liberals.
Posted in Media, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: Chris Matthews, falling poll numbers, Hardball, Obama, politics, Too Intellectual, Too Much of an Egghead | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2009
Harry Reid, fudging the damn numbers
I’m not sure how many people would sign on to a program that required them to work full-time for a period of four years before being paid; or one that would require four years of insurance payments on a car before being handed the keys; or one – as Senator Mitch McConnell puts it – that required four years of mortgage payments before one can move into a house, but I’m going to venture out on a limb and say not too many.
Just as the House version of the health care bill did two weeks ago, Harry Reid’s incarnation – over two-thousand pages strong – employs that old accounting chestnut: The Ten Year Dupe.
It’s pie-in-the-sky liberal voodoo at its cooked-books best.
Recall that earlier this week, Reid assured Americans that the Senate’s version of government-run health care would be a money-saver. Like the Pelosi bill, it would be cost-effective and still be able to insure billions and billions of health-care starved people without costing Americans an extra cent. In fact, there’d actually be some money leftover to pour into other meaningful things, like doorknobs at inner-city housing projects, the study of orgasms among college girls, and the continued examination of radioactive rabbit feces.
Over ten years, according to Reid, the whole kit-n-kaboodle would cost “only” $849 billion. (In today’s trillion-happy world, that’s chump change).
But we’ve all seen this movie before … and there are too many who still don’t get it.
Although tax increases would be implemented upon the bill’s passage into law, actual spending won’t begin until the fifth year of the bill’s application, 2014; and even then, it will be relatively miniscule. For instance, only $9 billion is slated to be spent that year. However, in 2016, spending reaches $147 billion. By 2019 (the last year of Reid’s ten year projection), it’ll hit $196 billion.
Thus, actual spending of any significance would only take place during the last six years of Reid’s health care debacle.
But, if one were to look at the actual numbers over a fully implemented ten year period, which would start in 2014, the cost is more than twice the $849 billion espoused by Reid – in the neighborhood of $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The Ten Year Dupe.
As many as seventeen new taxes will be enacted to help fund everything. As much as $800 billion, according to the CBO, will be sucked from Medicare during the first decade of full implementation and put somewhere else. Plus, hefty penalties for those individuals, families and businesses who fail to comply with guidelines will be imposed.
Let freedom ring.
Seeing as there will be four years of revenue collection before spending really begins – which means four more years of our ongoing American health care holocaust – where is all of that money going to go until it is ready to be spent? Where do four years of taxes and fines get stashed until the government begins saving American lives? Will there be a health care reform fund established? Will there be a secret shoe box hidden at an undisclosed location? Will convicted Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana allow the government to borrow his freezer?
Or the do words Social Security Fund mean anything to you?
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Economy, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: 2074 page health care bill, CBO, Congressional Budget Office, Harry Reid, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate health care bill | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2009
Because this story is making the rounds this morning, it is certainly worthy of a mention – particularly because it is big news here in my home state of New York. The word is: former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani will say “no” to a chance at the governor’s seat in Albany – the last best hope for a GOP top dog in New York, according to most – and instead make a run for the US Senate next year … maybe.
If true, it makes perfect political sense.
Rudy’s no dope.
The chances of any Empire State Republican – even Rudy – getting anything done as governor, especially with the never-ending soap-opera that is the New York State Senate to contend with, is next to nil. Add to that the Charles Manson-like control Democrat Speaker Sheldon Silver has on the state Assembly and you have a recipe for first-class, political-career-ending ineffectiveness.
Rudy doesn’t need that, especially after his disastrous presidential bid in 2008.
From the New York Daily News:
[A] number of sources close to the former mayor said no decision has been made and a Giuliani spokeswoman downplayed the reports. “Rudy has a history of making up his own mind and has no problem speaking it,” she said. “When Mayor Giuliani makes a decision about serving in public office, he will inform New Yorkers on his own.”
Several weeks ago, after the idea of Giuliani running for the Senate was first floated, one of the former mayor’s closest associates shot it down. “He has said time and again that the Senate is not a job for him,” said Tony Carbonetti. “He is a chief executive, and a damn good one.” If elected to the Senate, one source said, Giuliani could use that as a stepping stone to run for President in 2012 – rather than run for re-election to the Senate. Running for office would mean Giuliani would have to give up his lifestyle: He’s a hot commodity on TV talk shows, he rakes in big bucks for speeches and his law firm is doing well.
As much as it makes political sense for him to go after Hillary’s old Senate seat, the fact is, Rudy is not a back-seat, blend-in-with-the-crowd kind of guy. He is a center-stage, in-the-spotlight, take-charge type who plays second fiddle to no one. It’s difficult to imagine him being one part of a one-hundred person band of speech makers and policy peddlers jockeying for political position on Capitol Hill. He is, as Tony Carbonetti said, an executive. If, however, another jab at the White House is ultimately in his sights, two short years in the Senate may be doable – even if grudgingly.
Personally, I think if Rudy decides to run, he could very well reel in that Senate seat in convincing fashion, especially with the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, set to stand trial in a civilian Manhattan courtroom, courtesy the Democrats.
But he would still have to campaign, and figure out how to do it effectively. Let’s hope that in two years time he’s learned a thing or two.
If he does throw his hat into the ring, he may very well be the favorite, but it isn’t a given.
Posted in politics | Tagged: 2010 Senate Race, New York Senate Seat, Rudy Giuliani | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 19, 2009
It was all about transparency.
This administration was going to redefine what it meant to be honest and open with the American people. The backstairs cloak-and-daggerism that characterized the Bush regime would be a nightmare of the past as a brand-new forthrightness – an age of unprecedented lucidity and accountability – came to Washington. The days of covert, black-mask, in-the-shadows leadership would be behind us. It was the dawning of the Messianic Age. The moon would be in the seventh house. Jupiter would align with Mars. It would be as if Barack Obama himself was stopping by after work for Yodels and Yoo Hoos to personally discuss with us all of the happenings at the White House that day. We were all going to be in on it.
But that was then.
This is now.
And less than a year since Obama’s inauguration, Americans are split on whether or not Bammy is more transparent than W.
From Zogby Interactive:
Thirty-eight percent (38%) of likely voters believe the Obama administration is more transparent than the previous administration, but just as many (38%) believe there is less transparency now and 19% believe the level of transparency is about the same, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows.
Republicans and Democrats are split down party lines – 70% of Democrats believe the current administration is more transparent, while 72% of Republicans believe there is less transparency now than under the Bush administration. Among self-described political independents, more (41%) believe there is less transparency now, while 29% believe the Obama administration is more transparent. Twenty-four percent of independents believe the level of transparency in government is about the same under both administrations.
That’s correct, 41% of independents believe that there is less transparency under Obama than under George W. Bush.
And just for kicks, I thought I’d throw this one in: The Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index for Barack Obama, as of yesterday, is -14. That matches the lowest of his presidency so far.
Not that I’m keeping track.
Not that polls matter.
Posted in politics, Polls | Tagged: Barack Obama, George W. Bush, transparency, Zogby Poll | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 17, 2009
The Governor of New York and the President of the United States aren’t exactly tight. While they are both big time Democrats who hail from big blue states, they seem to have about as much affection for each other as a gaping flesh wound has for salt.
The President, for instance, has all but asked Paterson to bow out of the 2010 gubernatorial race, and the Governor has all but told him to take a flying leap off a high ledge.
That’s how they play together.
The decision by the Obama administration to bring terrorists to New York to stand trial has only widened the gap between them.
While most Democrats seem to be in favor of Attorney General Eric Holder’s (i.e., President Obama’s) disastrous decision to have 9/11 mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, tried in a civilian court with four of his terrorist chums, the Governor of New York, David Paterson, doesn’t like the idea one bit.
For once, I agree with the otherwise useless governor of my state.
Marcia Kramer from WCBS-TV in New York writes:
Gov. David Paterson openly criticized the White House on Monday, saying he thought it was a terrible idea to move alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other suspected terrorists to New York for trial.
“This is not a decision that I would have made. I think terrorism isn’t just attack, it’s anxiety and I think you feel the anxiety and frustration of New Yorkers who took the bullet for the rest of the country,” he said.
Paterson’s comments break with Democrats, who generally support the President’s decision.
“Our country was attacked on its own soil on September 11, 2001 and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost,” he said. “It’s very painful. We’re still having trouble getting over it. We still have been unable to rebuild that site and having those terrorists so close to the attack is gonna be an encumbrance on all New Yorkers.”
Paterson went on to say that “he will do everything in his power to make sure that the state’s Department of Homeland Security will keep New Yorkers as safe as possible.”
As difficult as this is to say definitively, considering the cavalcade of harm President Obama has already overseen since taking office ten months ago, this decision to bring war criminals to New York to be tried as civilians may very be the most disastrous of all.
More importantly, this is a very bad move for the United States. Treating war criminals like civilians, who will potentially have access to intelligence data and Bush-era policy information, is a calamity waiting to happen. It will also afford these examples of human excrement a forum from which to disgorge their hateful prattle.
As it stands right now, nearly two-thirds of all Americans believe this is a bad idea – that a military court is the place to try these war makers who have already asked to be put to death.
The first noise you hear is the gentle sound of terrorist laughter wafting across the oceans into New York, where that great big hole in the ground still sits.
That other sound you hear is Obama’s base collectively gnawing on that great big bone he threw them.
Posted in Evil, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: 9/11 mastermind, Barack Obama, civilian trial, David Paterson, Eric Holder, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, New York trial, terrorism, terrorist trial | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009
How many misfiring synapses does it take to enable one to come to the conclusion that moving incarcerated terrorists from a detention facility in Cuba to the mainland United States is a good idea? Uprooting human debris hell-bent on destroying America from a perfectly functioning maximum security military installation so that they can be locked up in America is the embodiment of absurdity. Where else but from the muddled minds of liberals could such thinking come? Where else but from the left could such a plan be born?
President Obama has said that Gitmo’s mere existence has served as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Thus, in Obama-speak, it stands to reason that once these terrorists are transported to the American mainland, recruitment for the terrorist organization will begin to fall off, right? Those who would have thought nothing about strapping bombs across the chests of their children to kill infidels will rethink their positions if the enemies of America could actually be moved here. Osama bin Ladin’s heart will surely soften once these jihadists are living in the midwest.
Makes sense, no?
Setting aside whatever anti-Bush motivations there are concerning this obsessive need among Obamacrats to close Guantanamo Bay, proponents of the terrorist transplant plan claim that it will also be a huge economic boost.
Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times writes:
If [the Thomson Correctional facility] is acquired by the federal government, [it] would be run as a supermax facility housing federal prisoners. A portion of it would be leased to the Defense Department for a “limited number” of Guantanamo detainees — about 100, according to Durbin. About 215 prisoners are now at Guantanamo.
[Senator Dick] Durbin’s office has been quarterbacking the potential sale of the prison through a series of meetings between the White House and [Governor Pat] Quinn, who is looking to generate revenues for the cash-strapped state.
According to an economic impact analysis by the Obama administration, the federal purchase and operation of Thomson could generate $1 billion for the local economy over four years and create between 2,340 and 3,250 jobs.
Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Everybody wins, yes?
Here’s the problem.
Every one of those jobs is a government job. That means every one of those employees’ salaries would come at the taxpayers’ expense. That means all of that money would be sucked out of the economy first before it is redistributed in the form of paychecks.
Durbin and Quinn called the possibility of opening such a facility in their state “a dream come true.”
That’s three thousand new jobs that can be added to the billions and billions of new jobs that have already been created by this administration.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism, terrorists, Thomas Correctional Facility, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 15, 2009
Remember how critical it was that Congress pass the Stimulus Bill? Remember how vital it was for the country’s well-being? Remember how its passage was essential to preserve America’s very existence? There wasn’t a moment to waste. It was so urgent, by golly, that there wouldn’t even enough time for anyone to sit down read the thing. Action had to be taken as soon as humanly possible, lest disaster strike. The United States, after all, was on the brink of complete and utter collapse.
Remember how quickly President Obama announced that he’d be shutting down the Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba after taking the Oath of Office? His inaugural waffle hadn’t even gotten cold yet before he was telling the world that the splendidly effective, incredibly efficient, perfectly secure terrorist prison would have to be shut down. Mind you, Obama had no alternate plan for the terrorists, nor was he ever able to convey a coherent reason for closing the facility. Nonetheless, he acted swiftly.
Remember when the President said, in regard to the threat of global warming, that “the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear”? Remember how he explained that “few challenges facing America — and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change”? Without a shred of evidence anywhere to support the hysterical belief that increasing CO2 levels are killing the Earth – and with thousands and thousands of years of evidence showing that climate does, in fact, change of its own accord – Obama didn’t spare a second beginning his full frontal assult on “climate change.”
He can be an impulsive bugger at times.
Obama wasted no time in facilitating the government takeover of auto makers. He didn’t hesitate to put the kibosh on the Eastern European missile defense shield. He thought nothing of saying that a recession was the wrong time for corporate profits. He was (and still is) quick to apologize for his own nation on foreign soil. Without a moment’s dithering, he was postive he couldn’t be sure when human life begins, yet knew enough to err on the side of killing the unborn. He was quick to condemn the Cambridge Massachusetts Police Department for “stupidly” handling the arrest of his race-obsessed friend, Professor Henry Louis Gates, without knowing the facts. He has instinctively rolled over for Iran, while alienating America’s allies.
And let us not forget ObamaCare.
In the mere blink of an eye he is prepared to create the most astronomicaly crippling debt this, or any other, nation has ever seen. Without as much as a batting eyelash, he is more than ready to saddle generation after generation with tax burdens unheard of in American history. Without breaking a sweat, he is eager to expand the federal government to levels that would have garnered a tip of the hat from FDR.
And yet …
When it comes to the war in Afghanistan – the fight he called the “war of necessity” – he just can’t seem to figure it out. Despite months and months to come up with a plan of action for what he said repeatedly was the central front in the fight against Al Qaeda, he just doesn’t know. Despite recommendations from the best military minds in the world, he just can’t seem find it in himself to do much of anything but wait. With American soldiers in harm’s way waiting for their Commander-in-Chief to finally act the part, President Obama says he wants to take it slow and come up with the best solution. So far, he’s rejected all proposed plans up to this point.
What the hell?
Afghanistan was Obama’s easy call, remember? This was the fight that America needed to be focused on all along, right? This was the “good war,” wasn’t it?
And yet, less than two weeks away from Thanksgiving, still nothing.
These things can’t be rushed, he says.
Anyway, enjoy Asia, Mr. President.
How many trips does that make since January?
Posted in Global Warming, health care, Junk Science, Liberalism, military, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Barack Obama, Obama dithering, War in Afghanistan | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 13, 2009
Let’s say, for instance, you brought your car to a local mechanic and ultimately wound up getting horrible service. Aside from the aggravation and frustration, you’d probably feel as if you’ve been swindled out of your hard earned money.
Now for the sake of this discussion, let’s say that a year later, despite your better judgment, you decide to give that mechanic one more try, only to have a similarly negative experience. In both instances, the customer service was dreadful and you were made to feel like an inconvenience. To top it off, you were overcharged and made to wait far longer than you should have.
Would you ever go back?
How about an accounting firm charged with balancing the books for your small business? Let’s say for three years running, the firm had so mismanaged your ledgers – and ultimately your tax returns – that the IRS decided to audit you.
Do you stick with them, figuring the fourth year to be the one where everything will finally be set right?
Or do you kick them to the curb (which you probably should have done two years ago)?
And what about the federal government?
Let’s say they passed into law a $787 billion Stimulus bill that was supposed to, by definition, “stimulate” economic growth by creating as many as 3.7 million new jobs across the country. And let’s say after nine months or so, with only a percentage of the money “infused” into the economy, the federal government started claiming that their hyper-spending was working – that the money they “invested” in America was saving or creating a whole lot of jobs, just as promised.
And let’s say not too long after the federal government made such a claim, news reports started coming out refuting those government assertions as being “wildly exaggerated.”
Not “marginally incorrect.”
Not “inappreciably erroneous.”
Not “slightly off.”
But “wildly exaggerated.”
And let’s say that during this time period, unemployment figures were still on the rise.
And let’s say those miscalculations by the federal government were only one in a long line of grossly inaccurate claims made by them, ultimately costing the taxpayers trillions of dollars, creating an endless labyrinth of government bureaucracy, and rewarding inefficiency with more of the people’s hard earned money.
Would you then feel confident enough to trust them to run your health care delivery system?
(Keep in mind that the current government-run health delivery systems – Medicare and Medicaid – have been disgustingly mismanaged by the same federal government).
On one hand, President Barack Obama is now claiming that his Spendulous Bill has saved or created one million jobs. One million jobs. All the while, the unemployment rate is as high as it’s been in one-quarter century … and rising.
On the other, the Boston Globe – not exactly a buttress of conservatism – says that the messianic claims being peddled by Bammy, at least in Massachusetts, are “wildly exaggerated.”
While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.
One of the largest reported jobs figures comes from Bridgewater State College, which is listed as using $77,181 in stimulus money for 160 full-time work-study jobs for students. But Bridgewater State spokesman Bryan Baldwin said the college made a mistake and the actual number of new jobs was “almost nothing.’’
In other cases, federal money that recipients already receive annually – subsidies for affordable housing, for example – was reclassified this year as stimulus spending, and the existing jobs already supported by those programs were credited to stimulus spending.
“There were no jobs created. It was just shuffling around of the funds,’’ said Susan Kelly, director of property management for Boston Land Co., which reported retaining 26 jobs with $2.7 million in rental subsidies for its affordable housing developments in Waltham. “It’s hard to figure out if you did the paperwork right. We never asked for this.”
Other examples from across the country illustrating the fairy-tale that is the Obama Million-Job-Farce include two Colorado child development centers that reported saving or creating 292 jobs. In actuality, the vast majority of the money was used to give cost-of-living raises. In all, only three new jobs were created.
In Washington, 34,500 jobs were supposedly saved or created – 24,000 of which were teaching positions. Stimulus money was used to cover paychecks, hence the claim of having “saved” the jobs. Unfortunately for the Bammy-Number-Crunching Machine, none of those jobs were in danger of going away because the money needed to cover those salaries would have come out of the state general fund. Those teachers were already contracted to finish the school year.
In Danville, Virginia, $35,000 is said to have created or saved 50 jobs. That’s quite a claim. In truth, the money didn’t create a single job – nor did it save any – but it did improve fifty already existing jobs. It went for raises, training, and playground repair.
In the Columbus, Ohio School District, where 36 school administrators were supposedly on the brink of being laid off, it turns out that no one was on the brink of being let go. There were only two options for officials to choose from on the form they were required to fill out for receiving stimulus money: “created” or “saved.” Since the jobs already existed, the only choice left was “saved.”
Stimulus money is said to have saved the jobs of 473 teachers in North Chicago. Unfortunately, the district only employs 290 teachers.
As talk show host Mark Levin said on his radio program yesterday, if Barack Obama were on the witness stand and made the million jobs claim under oath, he’d be a perjurer.
And yet, the federal government will somehow suddenly get it right and be trusted to manage the health care needs of Americans.
Posted in Big Government, Economy, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: $787 billion, economic recovery, Million Jobs Saved or Created, Recovery Bill, stimulus bill, Stimulus Package, wildly exaggerated jobs saved claim | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2009
Roland Martin and Michael Steele
There’s no question about it; when anyone in the public eye (particularly politics) decides they’re going to take a page from the “Idiot’s Guide to Being a Monumental Idiot” and break out the brutally tattered but always readily available race card, I’m all over it. I’ve littered this blog with endless examples of liberals (and other children) making melanin an issue of absurd importance. From Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, when someone goes racial, I make mention of it. As a conservative, if there is anything less significant to me in the grand scheme of things than the color of someone’s skin, I’ve yet to find it.
The grooming habits of eleventh century Byzantines hold more relevance for me.
Thus, in the name of intellectual honesty (and fairness), when someone on “my side” of the aisle says asinine things – particularly when it comes to matters of race – I am obliged to shine a light on it and crack some GOP skulls.
Enter the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele – who apparently believes that white Republicans are afraid of blacks. Or afraid of him, specifically.
He said so while speaking with Roland Martin on TV One’s Washington Watch over the weekend.
Here was the exchange:
Martin: But your candidates got to talk to them. One of the criticisms I’ve always had is Republicans — white Republicans — have been scared of black folks.
Steele: You’re absolutely right. I mean I’ve been in the room and they’ve been scared of me. I’m like, “I’m on your side,” you know, so I can imagine going out there and talking to someone like you, you know, who [says] “I’ll listen.” And they’re like “Well.” You know, let me tell you. You saw in Christie and you saw in McDonnell a door open because they went in and engaged. McDonnell was very deliberate about spending…
Steele: I mean, Sheila Johnson was on his team. I mean, that was a big deal. That’s because he engaged her and she helped navigate him through that relationship.
Enlightening – in a narcissistic, unproductive, neanderthal sort of way.
So, if I’m to understand … Michael Steel has actually been in the room with “them?”
And he knows “they’ve” been scared of him?
How exactly could he tell?
They were already white, so what other indications were there?
Did they walk on the other side of the room when they saw him coming?
Most importantly, how on God’s green earth is it good for the Republican Party to have its own chairman dump on his fellow party members the moment he hits a forum hosted by a liberal’s liberal like Roland Martin? Why would he so effortlessly throw members of his own team under the bus? Because the “shoot-your-own-when-in-the-enemy-is-looking” approach worked so well for John McCain? Because making liberals salivate by feeding their archaic perceptions of Republicans helps the party grow?
Mr. Steele, I can assure you … neither I nor my fellow conservatives are “afraid” of you because you’re black. Or because we may be white. Or because you sounded almost tweenish with your multiple use of the word “like.”
What we are afraid of is you may not be the right man for this job. Period.
Bad move, Michael.
Dumb move, Steele.
Posted in politics, Racism, Republican Politics | Tagged: Michael Steele, Racism, RNC Chairman, Roland Martin, TV One, whites scared of Michael Steel | 5 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 7, 2009
The President of the United States is calling on Americans to refrain from drawing quick conclusions in the aftermath of the shooting spree that saw 13 innocents murdered at Fort Hood, Texas on Thursday. He is asking that citizens not use their God-given common sense to formulate any sort of opinions on the horrific event that saw an officer of the United States Army shout “Allahu Akbar!” (God Is Great) just before opening fire. He is hoping that Americans can back off, take a deep breath and ignore all the news reports, videotapes and eyewitness accounts that suggest – putting it mildly – that the killer is an Islamic radical.
Sure, I’m willing to entertain the possibility that Nidal Malik Hasan was simply a jilted boyfriend, or angry about the Phillies losing the World Series, or furious that his DVR failed to record Thursday’s episode of “The Office,” but there just isn’t a whole of evidence pointing in those directions.
From the Financial Times in London:
The president made the comments as the commander of Fort Hood, the US’s largest base for deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, quoted witnesses as saying the suspected gunman, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, shouted the Muslim declaration “Allahu Akbar” – God is great – as he opened fire. Speaking at the White House, Mr Obama said: “We don’t know all the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts.”
Is the President honestly asking the American people to refrain from “jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts”?
I’m falling off the davenport trying to control my laughter.
This is the same man who, at a press conference, condemned a Massachusetts police department for its “stupid” handling of the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates without knowing any of the facts.
This is the same man who, without a single fact or stitch of evidence to back it up, declared the “global warming” debate a settled issue – and is fully prepared to inflict serious damage to the American economy in defending that “conclusion” with crippling greenhouse gas emissions legislation.
This is also the man who promised that every bill that made its way through Congress would be available for review by the public for five days.
I could go on.
Posted in Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, Ft. Hood | 2 Comments »