Tag Archives: political strategy

Changing the Liberal Mindset that Americans Have Unwittingly Come To Accept

Bookmark and Share I have spent a lot of time listening to Democrats and President Obama in particular, preach about fairness and making people pay their fair share. I have listened to an endless stream of liberals position themselves as federal cherubs who are trying to be little government sponsored guardian angels who just want to make sure that everyone is treated equally and that everyone gets what they deserve. Sometimes I swear I am listening to Tinkerbell talking to Peter freaking Pan, or listening to Glinda, the Good Witch of the North, tell me that if I click the heels of my ruby red slippers together, I will suddenly find a magical rainbow that will lead me to a government provided pot of gold.

What bothers me the most is not that these liberal leprechaun would try to convince people that their American version of socialism would make everything better, but that there are actually Americans who are really dumb enough to believe them.

But it is evidence of the fact that since the days of FDR, Democrats have come to believe not in strong economic policies for America, but rather in the kind of politics that can keep them in power by offering voters a choice between the truth of reality represented by the self determination which Republicans believe in, and the government fantasy version of reality that the left promotes. It is the kind of politics that is rooted in dependency and it is comprised of a formula which seeks to make people believe that things can be easier if they keep Democrats in power because Democrats will give the people a litany of wonderful things by declaring them rights.

They will give you government provided health care, education, food, salaries, and services, and all these gifts will make our lives easier, and better.

It is a vicious cycle which all began by exploiting dependency, a negative which Democrats now try to perpetuate. For Democrats, their formula for electoral success relies mainly upon making more people, more dependent on government goodies so that come Election Day, the voters will embrace rather than bite the liberals hands that the people have literally come to expect to feed them.

Pursuit of this political formula for electoral success has unfortunately had a big impact on many Americans. Without realizing it, many Americans have been brainwashed and come to embrace the liberal mindset which has successfully change the dynamics of American thinking.

Today, thanks to the left, the American constitutional paradigm which was a citizenry that granted limited powers to a federal government, has been forgotten and replaced with the thinking that starts from the premiss which has us now question how much power the government can give the people. It is really all quite insane.

Today we take taxes for granted so much that the debate is not how much the government should take. It is how much of what we earn can we keep. In this day an age we are grateful when a leader like Chris Christie comes along and proposes an across the board state income of 10%. Thanks to liberal propaganda and decades of liberal training, we actually believe that politicians are doing us a favor by lowering our taxes. But the truth is, that it is no favor! It is the only decent thing to do! Yet we have all fallen victim to a liberal agenda which has forced us to think backwards. Whether we realize it or not, liberal thinking has shifted our mindset and so today we thank a politician for allowing us to keep more of our own money, when what we should actually be doing is reprimanding them for not giving us back more of our own money.

It’s time for people to wake up and realize that in America, the people do not exist because of government, government exists because of the people. Americans need to realize that we should not be grateful for how much the government lets us keep, it is the government that should be grateful for what we the people are willing to give to it. Until we all realize that, we will all remain slaves to our government, and nothing more than the real servants to those who are suppose to be the government servants………the elected officials who we thank for allowing us to keep more of our money, and appreciate for giving us the permit and permission s to build a deck on our own private property or to go fishing or camping.

I recently listened to the elf-like liberal Congressman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich.

Dennis was discussing President Obama’s State of the Union address and he told the listening audience that he believed “the rich should pay more”. Other liberals phrase it differently. President Obama likes to say that “the rich should be forced to pay their fair share”. But what I need to know is what is fair and beyond that, who the hell has the right to tell us what is fair? Is Dennis Kucinich the Fairness Fairy?

Fairness is arbitrary and our Constitution did not address fairness. And as far as I known there is no twenty eighth amendment of the Constitution which defines fairness and articulates how government is suppose to legislate fairness. But the Constitution of the United States does address government’s place in our lives and in doing so, it clearly states that we are granted our rights from our creator. And just to make this clear, I need to tell you that the federal government did not create you or I. Barack Obama can not take credit for me. Nor can he legally take my rights away, even though several of his policies already have.

Another thing he should not be able to do is tell me how much I can earn, what I must do with my money, and who I must share it with.

Yet that is what the left has essentially lived for since the days of FDR.

They have lived for the opportunity to make me as good as the next guy by making sure that if the next guy is doing well, the government can redistribute his wealth to me. Is that a definition of fairness? Is it fair for me to profit from the work, ingenuity, work ethic, and committment of someone else?

These are the questions that President Obama and his Party have brought to the forefront in this election, more than any election we have seen in generations.

And while the economy is and should be one of the most important issues of the 2012 cycle, what America needs to really do is look at the dynamics behind the economy. Then they must decide if we want to fully invest ourselves in to reconstructing our national foundation in to one that is the world’s preeminent government sponsored welfare state, a state which is the key element to the survival of each individual American. Or do we want to strengthen the founding principles which were designed to get government and the federal bureaucracy out of the way so that we can practice the rights that we were endowed with by our creator and be free to dream well beyond the limits of the government bureaucracy?

That is the framework that this election must waged in. It is the question which the Republican nominee for President needs to condense every interpretation of each of their policies down to.

In 2012, the G.O.P. needs to remind people that dependency is not the American way and that our government was never meant to be the largest source of jobs in America. In fact the purpose of our government is not to create jobs, it was designed to make sure that American people could create jobs.

People must be made to once again learn how things really work in America.

They must be retrained to understand that government created jobs do not generate profits that sustain the costs of the salaries paid to each government employee. They need to understand that an employee of the EPA does not do create wealth, they consume wealth. The American people must be made to once again realize that when the government creates a job, the salary for that job comes not from any federal profit…..it comes from the taxpayers, and in order to keep raising the money required to pay that government salary, the government will need to continue taking taxpayers money.

However, in the free market, profits create salaries and the more profits there are, the more salaries there are.

But there is even more to it than that basic fact.

Voters need to be made aware of the fact that according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, civilian workers employed through the federal government have an average wage of $81,258. Yet at the same time, the average wage of the nation’s approximate 101 million private-sector workers is $50,462.

This means that taxpayers, the people who are making money through jobs that generate profits, are paying federal workers 25% more than they make. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama is increasing federal spending through so-called economic stimulus dollars, that is creating an even larger federal workforce, one that for a while was outpacing private sector job growth. And that is a formula for further disaster.

Paying federal salaries, and more of them, that are higher than the salaries which provide the taxes that pay for those federal pay checks, is a formula that leads to paying out more than we take in. And that is just on government jobs. It has nothing to do with the other more traditional forms of federal deficit spending based on entitlements and federal dependency programs.

All of this presents the next Republican presidential nominee a with a multifaceted challenge.

They must not just provide solutions and frame them in a way that wins people over, they must also educate people. The next Republican presidential nominee must educate people on how America is suppose to work and they must teach them the reasons why the socialist model of contemporary liberal-progressivism does not work and how it is a system designed to keep the powerbrokers in power by making them the people we are dependent for our own survival.

In 2012 we make people understand that government is not a supernatural entity which can wave a magic wand over a problem and solve it without accountability and without there being future repercussions as Peter finally has to Paul.

Once people can be made to realize that, I mean really realize that, half the battle will be won.

Once that is achieved we then need to confront Democrats and tell them that if they want change the purpose of government, they, like President, should come right out and admit it.

When he was running for President in 2008, then Senator Obama declared that he wanted to “fundamentally change America”. But few took him at his word. And those that did, didn’t think he really meant he wanted to fundamentally change the constitutional responsibilities of government. But now it is quite obvious that that is exactly what he meant.

In 2012 we must challenge Democrats to be truthful to the American people and force them to come before voters and admit that they want the federal government to have more control over our lives. We must challenge them to be honest and admit that they do not like the fact that some people can be financially wealthier than others. We must make the left come before the American electorate and let them know the America that liberals envision, is one in which everyone is made equal by lowering the overall quality of life rather than providing the type of environment which creates more opportunities for people to improve their quality of life.

We know for certain that class warfare is the name of the liberal game in 2012. It’s nothing new. But what Republicans must do now is reeducate the American people and make them realize why it is class warfare. And we must then ask the American people to decide once for all, if they believe dependency on the federal bureaucracy is the best foundation for them to build their lives upon and for our nation to grow on, or is the independence behind our reason for being the more solid choice for the future of our nation and its people.

Bookmark and Share
Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under politics

Poll Proves President Obama to Be Weak Where He Should Be Strong

Bookmark and Share    A new Quinnipiac Poll shows that 52% of New Jersey voters disapprove of the job that President Obama is doing and 43% approve of his job performance.  It is his lowest approval rating in the Garden State yet.  A breakdown of the polls shows that  Democrats approve of his job performance 77% to 19% percent. Disapproval is 88% – 10%  among Republicans, and the most important and lethal number is his 60% – 34% disapproval rating among independent voters.

Quinnipiac also notes that there is a large gender gap as women have a 50% to 45% approval rating of the Presidents job performance, while men disapprove  60%  to 36%.

Still though, the poll finds that voters are split 47% to 48% on whether President Obama deserves reelection.

However; one should take note of the polling history pertaining to New Jersey’s 2009 gubernatorial election.

At this same point in that election, almost a year before it took place,  a similar Quinnipiac Poll found that New Jersey voters disapproved of Governor Jon Corzine’s job performance by 51% to  40%.  It was his fourth negative score that year. Democrats approved of the Governor 60% to  31, while Republicans disapproved 75% to 19%,  and independent voters gave him a thumbs down by 52% – 38%.

Those numbers are better than President Obama’s number are and Jon Corzine went on to be  soundly defeated by Chris Christie.

The only difference is that President Obama’s job approval among Democrats is higher than Jon Corzine’s approval was at this same point in his election.  That shows that New Jersey Democrats are still more enthusiastic about Obama than they were of Corzine.  But aside form that, President Obama’s disapproval among New Jersey Republicans, and more importantly, New Jersey Independent voters, is substantially higher than Corzine’s were.

All of this simply confirms that at the moment, President Obama is indeed in trouble.

These poll numbers come from a very blue state that is in the bluest region of the nation for…….. the Northeast.  If the majority of voters  in a state like New Jersey disapprove of the job that the President  is doing, than you can rest assured that similar sentiments exist throughout the region.  So it only follows that President Obama will have to actually spend time and money campaigning in state’s like, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and even New York.  That will give the President less time and resources to dedicate to winning battleground, or swing states, like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida.

The last time a Republican presidential candidate won New Jersey was in 1988, when George H. W. Bush defeated Michael Dukakis.

With 14 electoral votes, if New Jersey does not soon be safely in President Obama’s column, it will dramatically increase the number of electoral college equations needed for Republicans to reach the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency.  Following conventional wisdom, giving Democrats and Republicans the state’s they traditionally win and leaving states like Ohio, Pennsylvania and several others undecided, if New Jersey is a tossup,  President Obama will have 15 different ways to reach a winning combination of electoral votes.  Republicans would have 45 winning combinations available to them.  And for those who really like suspense, there would be 7 scenarios whereby there could be a tie in the electoral college.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Operation Old TEA Bag: The Democrat’s Hail Mary Pass

Bookmark and Share    The recent special election in New York’s 9th Congressional District did more than just elect a Republican to a seat that  hasn’t been in the hands of the G.O.P. since 1923. It also shed some light on the desperation of Democrats and what direction they will throw the ball in when they try to salvage their 2012 election fortunes with a last minute Hail Mary pass.

In the race that pitted liberal incumbent Democrat Assemblyman David Weprin against retired businessman, Republican Bob Turner, Democrats struggled to find the issues that their candidate could run on to win voters over. Initially they did not even do that. At first it was assumed that as always, whichever Democrat they ran, would sail to victory and succeed sex texting addict Anthony Weiner. But then in August, Democrat polling showed something strange. It showed that Democrat Weprin was not getting the amount of support that Democrats usually get. This then suggested to them that they actually had a real and competitive election on their hands.

So they got to work and started to develop the issues they would campaign on.

What they found was that Weprin and Democrats had no positions on the issues that would excite voters and convince them that Weprin was their man. Even in a relatively liberal district like the ninth, there were no issues which Democrats held a popular position on.

There was the issue of gay marriage which Weprin recently supported the passage of in the New York State Assembly. But with a heavy Hassidic Jewish population in the ninth, legalizing marriage between two people of the same sex was far from popular.

There was the issue of our national debt. On that issue, Weprin held a typical Democrat line which supported big government and big government social programs. But even in a left leaning district like the one that spans the working class neighborhoods of Brooklyn and Queens, voters know that our debt has become a deepening crisis for our nation and as such, they understand that more government spending is not realistic. That left Weprin with the opportunity to use the traditional liberal language of tax increases to pay for all the spending. But in the middleclass communities of NY-9, tax increases, even for those who earn $250,000 or more, doesn’t really go over well. The ninth congressional district is comprised largely of those people in the middle……the ones who get hit from both ends and are not poor enough to benefit from government social programs, but are not wealthy enough to take advantage of the tax loopholes and credits that the political establishment has arranged for. So these people did not want to hear the Obama “make the rich pay their fare share” rhetoric. Many of them are afraid that a liberal definition of “rich” would include them.

There was the issue of immigration. However on that issue, Weprin has a liberal “Dream Act” position that does not solve the illegal immigration issue that impacts on his district’s residents. They do not want their money going to fulfilling the dreams of illegal immigrants. These people, many of which remember seeing the World Trade Center from their windows and worked within its shadows, want our borders secured.

So like many other issues, that was out.

There was Israel. After all, with a population of Jewish voters that is disproportionately larger than in many other districts throughout the nation, as an Orthodox Jew himself, Weprin could certainly and convincingly argue his support for Israel and ride high on the popularity of that point. Unfortunately though, being a Democrat, most voters linked Weprin to President Obama’s unfriendly policies towards Israel. And Weprin’s argument to voters that they should trust him on israel because he would fight for Israel from within, didn’t have wings.

Short of a total condemnation of President Obama by Weprin, the Jewish vote in his district simply viewed Weprin as a congressional rubberstamp for Obama’s polcies.

The further Democrats went down the list of issues important to the middleclass voters of the ninth, the more they realized that there were no issues which allowed them to present a position that they could derrive district-wide support for.

So what is a candidate with a competitive election ahead of him to do?

Why, resort to the liberal playbook, of course!

That meant scare citizens. That meant to try and distort the Republican position to preserve Social Security and Medicare for those on it and those expecting to soon  be on them.  It meant denying the Republican position to preserve those programs for future generation with reforms that will strengthen Social Security and medicare. It meant do your best to make vulnerable senior citizens believe that if a Republican won, they would deny them the money that many seniors have come to rely upon.

That was a good start but Weprin and his Democrat strategists and Washington puppet masters needed something else to attract some voters outside of the senior citizen demographic. That’s when the orders from Washington came down. And that is when the strategy to run against the TEA Party came into play.

So in early August Operation Old TEA Bag went into effect. That is when Weprin campaign spokesperson Elizabeth Kerr first argued the following:

“Bob Turner’s doing anything he can to distract voters from his plan to end Medicare as we know it, which would cost seniors in Brooklyn and Queens an extra $6,400 every year,” .

And from there, the tactics to scare senior citizens began

Then when the news that Standard & Poor’s had downgraded the country’s credit rating because of fiscal uncertainty came out and  dominated the headlines, Weprin’s campaign defined Bob Turner as a TEA Party extremist and charged that because of their “irresponsible demands”, “Republican Tea Party extremists” facilitated the downgrade and the fallout from it.

From that point on, the Democrat campaign for Congress in NY-9 began.

It was a constant barrage of trying to make the TEA Party the enemy that voters had to unite against.  It was a never ending campaign to define Bob Turner as the TEA Party candidate. In Between those lines of attack was tossed in the same old scare tactics intended to frighten senior citizens that predate the Reagan Administration.

For his part Bob Turner campaigns argued;

“Career politicians like David Weprin have taxed and spent this country into a crisis. They have jeopardized the entire social safety network by irresponsibly borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend,”

And as one Turner campaign aide put it;

“Businessman Bob Turner is running to protect Social Security and Medicare for every American over 55 years old and to put those essential programs on a sustainable path for everybody younger than that.”

But Bob Turner didn’t just defend himself against Operation Old TEA Bag. He spent most of his time denouncing the Obama policies that even urban, middle-class Democrats have lost faith in. Like the days of Ronald Reagan, Bob Turner found himself addressing a new generation of Reagan Democrats. Democrats who do not appreciate the condition of our nation and do not have faith in the direction their Party is heading in under a liberal President.

Yet as the campaign continued and the polls tightened, D.C. Democrats from the DCCC, DNC, and from the state and local Party apparatus, double-downed on their last hope……Operation Old TEA Bag. Even when only days before the special election was to take and polls showed that Turner turned the tables and was now ahead of Weprin, Democrats found themselves desperately trying to make a success of their fear campaign of senior citizens and their efforts to make the TEA Party the common enemy.

The plan was perfect. It even concluded on a  high note…….a recorded phone call from former President Clinton which tied the TEA Party and Medicare together as he stated “and he’ll oppose the TEA Party plan to destroy Medicare” [see the video below].  But ultimately, what Democrats thought was the perfect strategy, proved to be as unsustainable and useless as their economic policies.

Like driving a car on empty it was a last ditch, desperate attempt to run a camping not on any issues,  just on fear. The only problem is that in the end, senior citizens were less afraid of distortions about Bob Turner than they were of the truth about the current direction our nation is headed. In the end, the voters of the ninth district decided that the TEA Party was not their problem. Democrats were.

Unless  Democrats start singing a different a tune, they will still be the problem in 2012.  And just as Operation Old TEA Bag did not work for them in CD-9,  it will not work for them in the 2012 elections.from the top of the Democrat ticket , to the bottom of the ballot.  However, with little else left in their playbook, I expect the Democrats to do little else but resort to scaring senior citizens and trying to run against the TEA Party. 

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics

Join the “I Hate the Talentless and Socialist Janeane Garofalo” Facebook Page

Bookmark and Share  So apparently Herman Cain is an Uncle Tom who has been hired by the Republican Party in order to deflect charges of being a racist entity. So says Hollywood liberal elitist Janeane Garofalo, a truly talentless hack who pretends to be a politically aware citizen when in fact she is an ignorant socialist.

In her own words, Garofalo told another untalented socialist hack, Keith Olbermann, the following:

“It’s from the first time I ever saw him, especially after the first Fox debate and Frank Luntz as you know, has zero credibility — has these alleged ‘just plain folks’ polls after these Fox debates — and he asked who won the debate. And he was just about to say raise your hand if you support and before he finished, everybody’s hand went up to support Herman Cain. So it seemed as if they had been coached to support Herman Cain.

“I believe Herman Cain is in this presidential race because he deflects the racism that is inherent in the Republican Party, the conservative movement, the tea party certainly, and the last 30 years, the Republican Party has been moving more and more the right, also race-baiting more, gay-baiting more, religion-baiting more.”

She adds;

“But Herman Cain, I feel like, is being paid by somebody to be involved and to run for president so that you go, ‘Oh, they can’t be racist. It’s a black guy. It’s a black guy asking for Obama to be impeached’ or ‘It’s a black guy who is anti-Muslim,’ or ‘It’s a black guy who is a tea party guy,’”

Garofalo continued;

“I feel like, well wouldn’t that suit the purposes of whomever astroturfs these things, whether it be the Koch Brothers or ALEC or Grover Norquist or anything. It could even be Karl Rove. ‘Let’s get Herman Cain involved so it deflects the obvious racism of our Republican Party.’  

Under normal circumstances, Garofalo’s comments might be viewed as just another outrageous liberal charge from an out of touch Hollywood type. But this is not a normal circumstance, this is an act of despicable defamation, not just to the G.O.P. but to Herman Cain, a respectable American leader of business and community. But this ridiculous charge by Garofalo does not stand alone. It must be viewed in the context of the rest of her lies and outrageous claims.

Garafalo has publicly called the tea Party a “bunch of tea bagging redneck racists”. She has accused the Bush/Cheney Administration of participating in “a conspiracy of the 43rd Reich.”, and demonstrated her true ignorance and intolerance of different opinions in statements such as;

“When Communist U.S.S.R. was a superpower, the world was better off. The right-wing media is trying to marginalize the peace movement.”

“When I see the American flag, I go, ‘Oh my God, you’re insulting me.”

And let us not forget;

“Let’s be very honest about what this is about. It’s not about bashing Democrats, it’s not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don’t know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up.”

Meanwhile, the backlash to these remarks has done nothing but assist the cause of Herman Cain.  On Thursday evening his staff posted the following Twitter

“Thanks, Ms. Garofolo. It’s been a great day of fundraising for @THEHermanCain http://t.co/zZnNGwm #tcot”

Although Garofalo has a right to her opinion, those of us who are subjected to listening to her rants in the  media, also have a right to react with our own opinions of Ms. Garofalo. So here goes.

Garofalo is a freakish mix of losers like Joy Behar, Rosie O’Donnell, and Michael Moore. She is a delusional leftist who would not know the truth if it was written for her in a script.

Garafalo’s claim to fame is that she is a has been dark standup comedian, failed radio host, and bit part actress in made for cable programs that consider her for parts because of her willingness to curse like a truck driver. Since you can only get so many laughs from the use of the f word or calling people bitches, she has embarked on a liberal propaganda tour that is based on political opinions stemming from the teachings of Karl Marx.

As a typical uninformed liberal who would rather rewrite history than study it, Garofalo is clearly out of touch with reality. Perhaps she is suffering from some form of mental illness but either way, she is delusional and obnoxious and if the media wants to continue giving her irresponsible words air time, the proliferation of works dedicated to the disapproval and dislike of Garofalo and the Marxist cause she advances, are inevitable.

In the mean time, while there exists no doubt that Ms. Garofalo made her accusations, but no evidence or truth to the claim that Herman Cain is a hired G.O.P. operative betraying his race, Ms. Garofalo should show a modicum of decency and apologize to the National Republican Committee, the tens of million of Americans who are registered Republicans, and Herman Cain, a man who sacrificed much to make his case to the American people, unlike Jeneane Garofalo who is afforded the chance to denigrate decent people simply because she is a typical New York-Hollywood liberal elitist.

With that said, I ask that you join the newly created “I Hate the Talentless and Socialist Janeane Garofalo” Facebook Page.

Go to the page, click the “Like” button and post your own opinions of Garofalo and her outrageous accusations and claims.

Bookmark and Share

1 Comment

Filed under politics

Governor Chris Christie Hospitalized

Bookmark and Share New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the man that many national polls show Republicans wish could be their presidential nominee was rushed to Somerset Medical Center by his security detail early on Thursday. While in route to a bill signing ceremony regarding open space legislation, the Governor experienced difficulty breathing. Early reports indicated that the detour to the hospital was simply an intentional “abundance of caution”.

Early reports from Governor Christie’s spokesman Michael Drewniak suggest that all indications are that “the governor will be OK.” Christie’s deputy chief of staff, Maria Comella, told The Associated Press that the Governor is “fine and in charge.”

Meanwhile Lt. Governor Kim Guadagno is reportedly in his office and Christie’s wife, Mary Pat, is at her husbands side in the hospital . So far everything on Christie’s schedule for Thursday has been cancelled. This includes his monthly appearance on NJ 101.5 for the “Ask the Governor Show”

Christie, who is 48, overweight, and suffers from asthma for which he uses an inhaler, is said to be undergoing a breathing examination, along with an EKG to rule out heart problems, as well as blood tests and chest X-rays to look for pneumonia or other infections. There is no word yet on any changes to his Friday schedule.

The Governor, who has been in office for only 18 months, has taken Republican circles by storm with his frank talk and bold leadership on spending cuts, entitlement reforms, and an unusually courageous approach to unions which have historically run the show in New Jersey. While Christie has repeatedly declared that he is not ready to run for the White House, Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney recently went public with his desire to seriously consider Christie as a running mate in 2012.

As for the rest of the Republican presidential field, there has not yet been any reaction to the news of the Governor’s hospitalization, but Texas Governor Rick Perry, a potential candidate for President did offer the following tweet in his Twitter feed:

Our prayers are with Governor Christie.”

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

DNC Ad Attacks GOP With CPAC

Bookmark and Share  In what can only be viewed as a sign of things to come, the Democratic National Committee is returning to their attempts at demonizing Republicans by trying to paint their conservative base as heartless fiends and maniacal evil scientists who would dare to experiment with such things as the ability for the free market to improve quality and life in America. In a video put out this week by the DNC, clips from CPAC, the American Conservative Union’s annual Conservative Political Action Conference.

The video uses clips of cheering CPAC audiences as speakers talk of replacing the E.P.A, abolishing the Board of Education and allowing people to opt out of Social Security. After the evil Republicans have their say, Steny Hoyer and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz are spliced in as they discuss how Democrats are making sure that America is competitive enough to insure is a stronger economic future. The video then goes to a clip of President Obama from his State of the Union Address in which he discusses the entrepreneurial spirit of Americans and how as a nation “we do big things.”

What the ad does not tell you is that for Democrats, those big things are big government and big government programs which replace the American entrepreneurial spirit with bureaucratic mandates and regulations that have a return on the dollar that is less than the cost required to implement.

Another interesting thing to point out is that, the way I see it, the DNC seems to also be banking on President Obama’s supposed great oratory skills as means to appeal to the hearts and minds of the American voter. Not that there is anything wrong with that. A President should be able to do so, but one must be able to tap into American sentiments if they wish to be successful at such attempts. One must be Reaganesque if they wish to do that. The problem is we knew Ronald Reagan and Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan. Nice try though.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Obama Administration Is Sending Us Into An Economic Dark Age

Bookmark and Share    On Tuesday, in a televised interview, President Obama’s top political economic advisor, Larry Summers, unintentionally explained why the current liberal regime in Washington, D.C. is setting the United States up for a prolonged economic dark age.

Summers told Fox Business News that the administration’s economic agenda and their planned rate hikes on Americans earning $250,000 a year, will strengthen the economy and he did so by claiming that

“Almost all economists who studied these things have that kind of view,”.

Not only was Larry Summer’s claim an exaggeration, it was a downright lie.

The American Economic Association has 22,000 registered, professional members. More than 90% of them oppose tax increases and approve tax cuts. But liberal spinmiesters like Summers claim that “almost all economists” have the view that increasing taxes on those who are investing in the sustainable free market and fueling it and our economy , should be penalized and have the government take more of their money and do the investing instead of them.

Summers is not an economic advisor, he is an economic terrorist who is blatantly trying to plunder the source of America’s real economic survival……, the overburdened American consumer. What Summers fails to point out is that by taking more money from those who earn $250,000 a year we are insuring that these people, the ones who invest in business and industry, the ones who start up small business and create jobs, will have less to invest and less to start those business or keep them going with.

The economic strategy of Larry Summers and the Obama regime, is not an economic strategy at all. It is a political strategy. Democrats know that there is mileage to be gained by continuing to wage class warfare. They know that middle and lower class Americans who are hurting will always have a bit of resentment for those who are wealthy or relatively wealthy. Last year, the New York Times reported that 74% of all Americans favor taxes on people who make more than $250.000 a year. They also reported that in the same poll 51% of all Americans would support those same higher taxes even if it “hurts the economy”. Even if it hurts the economy!

Well that is exactly what the Obama regime is doing……hurting, not helping the economy. And they are willingly doing so because they know that they can get, even some quiet support, from those who want to ‘stick it’ to those who are better off than them. The economic policies of President Obama are not based on the future prosperity of this nation. It is based on trying to maintain a 50 plus 1 percent electoral strategy that allows them to be competitive in elections. This is not leadership, it’s cowardice. This is not policy, it’s politics.

It works like this.

Back in 2003, when liberals were trying to oppose the Bush tax cuts, they obtained signatures from 400 economists who opposed the tax cuts and then ran with headlines like

“”Economists Blast Bush Tax-Cut Proposal” and “Bush Tax-Cuts Come Under Fire from Economists.”

With 22,000 members in the American Economic Association, 400 of them amounts to 1.8% of American economist. So while 1.8% opposed the cuts, Democrats tried to convince you that since four hundred professionals supposedly in the know oppose it, it must be bad.

What liberals did not tell you is that 98.2% of those ‘in the know’, support tax cuts.

Flash forward to today when Larry Summers, the President’s chief economic political strategist is telling us that “most economists” agree with the Administration’s punishing tax increases.

The President’s lack of willingness to provide true leadership on the issue is plunging us into an economic ‘Dark Age’.

While he is proposing more and more historic levels of government spending, his tax increases on those he calls “the rich”, will absorb the flow of money and the growth of any sustainable American economy.

Look at nothing but the facts. Despite trillions of dollars in new spending designed to create jobs and grow the economy, few if any private sector jobs have been created. These are sustainable jobs, work that finances itself through the free market and private sector. Work that does not require government funded taxpayer dollars to keep them viable. The only jobs that may have currently been created by all the new government spending are government jobs that provide the type of employment which requires taxpayers to pay for. They are not sustainable jobs.

Add to that a well over trillion dollar deficit, the lack of a growing economy or sustainable job growth, the lethal combination of shortfalls in long term federal entitlement programs, a near tripling of the national debt, and tax increases on those who pump money into the economy and what you have is a bus that is headed toward the end of the cliff that we are precariously traveling on.

Between increased government spending on unsustainable government jobs and government programs, and tax increases on sources that create sustainable jobs and economic growth, and what we are seeing is the epitome of liberal hypocrisy.

During tough economic times, the left insists that the government must spend our way out of it and into prosperity. Yet when the economy is running strong, liberals insist that it is our government’s moral obligation to still spend more money. This have your cake and eat too economic policy that legitimizes government spending under all circumstances, does not suffice. Not anymore.

But to this, the Obama regime and his comrades on the left fire back with the charge that Republicans are not offering any alternatives. According to Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even the President, they claim that the G.O.P. is “just the party of ‘no’.”

What they don’t tell you is this.

Last year House Republicans proposed a budget that did provide an alternative to the Obama political economic strategy. It did the following.

It Kept federal spending at just above 20 percent of the gross domestic product, called for a temporary moratorium on earmarks and a cleaning up of the process that promotes earmarks, borrowed $3.6 trillion less than the President Obama’s budget, simplified the existing arcane tax code and had ‘NO’ tax increases, attempted to reform the unsustainable costs of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and created $23,000 less debt per household than President Obama did.

These were alternatives that Republicans in the House put forward. But they were not the only ones House Republicans proposed. They also sponsored efforts to takes back the stimulus money that will be spent in 2010 and the years to follow once the recession is expected to be over. And one other notable proposal was a freeze on non-defense, non-veterans spending at the existing level for five years.

Sound familiar? It should.

One year later, in his State of the Union address, Supreme Czar Obama proposed a similar spending freeze for this year. It is an idea that, had President Obama been willing to work in the bipartisan manner that he is now calling for, he could have considered and enacted with Republican support.

A real “economic advisor” would have told the President to take that offer and run with it. He would have told him that it is a way to get Republican votes for the budget, show a sign of bipartisanship and perhaps begin to allow the government to get a handle on its out of control spending. But Larry Summers is not an economic advisor, he is a political strategist who is not working for the Commander-In-Chief, he is working for the Candidate-In-Chief.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

JUDD GREGG WITHDRAWS NOMINATION FROM OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

antgreggBookmark and Share    Earlier today, the previous post in fact, POLITICS 24/7  suggested that if Presdient Obama does not have faith in Senator Judd Gregg’s ability to properly carry out all of the responsibilities of the Commerce Secretary, than he should withdraw Gregg’s nomination for the job.

The controversy swirled around President Obama’s attempt to take responsibilities for the census out of the hands of the Commerce Department because Gregg is a Republican.

President Obama’s call to put the census in the hands of the White House and under the direction of his partisan chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, did not exactly assure people that the census would be anymore non-partisan under him than Senator Gregg.

Well in what is becoming a norm for the administration, another cabinet nominee has declined the nomination.

Senator Gregg claims that ideological differences over the stimulus package make it clear that he is not in sync with the administration and that he was apprehensive over the President’s attempt to take responsibility away from the department. White House officials have yet to respond.

Either way, the move is good one.

It was apparent that President Obama did not have confidence in Senator Gregg and that there would be too much second guessing of him if he were to actually become Secretary of Commerce.

This is the second nominee for Commerce Secretary to withdraw their nomination.

Governor Richardson of New Mexico withdraw weeks ago after it was disclosed that he was under investigation for selling state contracts in turn for campaign donations.

As it stands now, commerce seems to be a problem for the administration.

Hopefully they can get their act together and find someone who they can trust to do the job without taking the department’s responsibilites away  in order to serve partisan political agendas.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

KARL ROVE IN CHARGE OF THE CENSUS?

Bookmark and Share    If that were true, liberals would be jumping out of their shoes and throwing them at the White House with a sense of fury unparalleled in political history. antcensus_bureau_sealIf it were true that a partisan Republican architect of political strategy were to be put in charge of a process that much of our government will be based on for a decade, people would be calling for investigations, hearings and heads on a plate.

Well that is what people are beginning to do. But not because Karl Rove is implementing some sort of partisan designs on the census but because Rahm Emanuele is being called upon to do so.

Rahm Emanuele is an undeniable partisan politician who first came to fame as a member of the Clinton administration.

He rose through the political ranks as a fundraiser for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and as a diehard, Chicago, clubhouse, Democrat, Emanuele never had a problem in insuring that all things political went his way. Such is why when he became a Chicago congressman, the Democrat party turned to Emanuele and made him the Majority Whip, the guy that whipped Democrat votes into line.

So partisan is Emanuele that a few years back he mailed a dead fish to pollster who published poll results that Emanuele did not like because they failed to show his Democrat candidate ahead by as much as he wanted.

Rahm Emanuele is so driven by partisanship that one night, shortly after Bill Clinton was elected President, during a dinner, Emanuelle started rattling off a list of names which he considered to be political enemies and to punctuate his intentions he stabbed the table with a steak knife each time , as he said “Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Obama TransitionJackson! Dead!” etc…..

This is the man who President Obama wants to hold sway over the non-partisan and non-political census process.

The census takes place every ten years and it determines just about every statistic regarding the American population and government funding to that population. Based upon population shifts, it also determines how new congressional district lines are drawn and that dictates influence of everything from who your representatives are to how much sway your state has in electing a president.

Until now, responsibility for how the census is conducted and how census figures are determined was under the responsibility of the Commerce Department. However now that President Obama has nominated Judd Gregg, a Republican Senator, to be Commerce Secretary, liberals have yelled at President Obama and protested a Republican being involved in the census process.

In response to their cries, President Obama stated that the White House will supervise the census.

That means that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuele will be in charge of it and that brings up quite a few problems.

First of all, it demonstrates a lack faith in President Obama’s choice for Secretary of Commerce.

By taking responsibility for the census away from the Commerce Secretary, President Obama is in essence claiming that he does not trust Senator Gregg’s ability to do the job properly. If that is the case, why did he choose Judd Gregg for the job? Was this another example of the bad job of the Obama administration’s vetting process?

If it is not an indication of Gregg’s inability to do the job right than it is a blatant attempt to put the non-partisan census process in the hands of  diehard partisan operative Rahm Emanuele.

Either way this another dent in the creation of what is suppose to be the most ethical administration in history.

The census process has not even begun to get off the ground and already the Obama administration is tainting it. The President has made it clear that he is going to make the census a top priority and now he is making it obvious that he will try to make it a political process that favors Democrats.

It is a slick move on behalf of President Obama. After all, under the Commerce Department, everything that they do to establish census procedures needs to be approved by congress. Not so in the White House though.  The White House staff can operate secretly and does not require congressional approval. That means that under the direction of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuele, census figures can be established any old way.

After seeing five different administration nominees already get caught up in scandal, it is not very comforting to see the new administration actively participate in political slights of hand that taint a process that we will have to live with for a decade.

Bookmark and Share

punchline-politics

CENSUS MAKERS ARE FOOLS

A famous Norwegian explorer returned home from a voyage and found his name missing from the town register.

His wife insisted on complaining to the local civic official who apologized profusely saying,

I must have taken Leif off my census“.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

THE NEXT 2 YEARS COULD BE CRITICAL FOR REPUBLICANS

antlinesjpg

The GOP is literally at a make or break point that could a establish a fait accompli   

As we enter into the closing year of the new millennium’s first decade, the approaching official national census process is where some, if not a large portion of the battle for our political future will take place.

After the census has been taken in 2010, every legislative district from which we elect council members in local and city governments to state legislators and members of congress will be redrawn based upon the population shifts determined by the census.

This means that once those figures have been established, during 2010, state legislatures will spend the following year redrawing new legislative districts.

Despite laws that try to regulate how legislative maps can be drawn and try to eliminate gerrymandering, redistricting is primarily a political process that is left up to the political party or parties with majority control at the time that redistricting occurs. That said, the powers that be use their majority status to creatively draw new legislative districts that favor their party. A handful of states have separatecommissions that draw the district lines.  Some of those grant veto to the states governors and some don’t.  But regardless, even those commissions, involved in those 6 or states, contain a degree of politcal leanings.

In either event, by using a range of election results from over the last 8 years or so, party leaders establish where their favorable votes come from. Using that as their basis, they draw districts that contain a plurality of population centers that favor their party.

This allows the majority political party to substantially consolidate power by creating new election districts that are likely to send more of their kind to their county seats and state capitols as well as those who we send to congress.

Regardless of the laws that are designed to take political influence out of the redistricting process and despite the various state redistricting commissions that are set up to oversee the process, it is an entirely political process. You must understand that the politicians create the new districts maps themselves or appoint the redistricting commissions regulating the process. Even when the courts have to step in, it remains a political process…….Who appoints the judges that make the rulings on this type of stuff?…..The politicians. So no matter what, it is a fact that the redistricting process is a political process. To pretend it isn’t, is a demonstration of naiveté that should prohibit one from even discussing politics. The only arguable point may be the varying degree of politicization that the process holds for one state or another.

Keeping that in mind, in one sense the census will, or could benefit, Republicans on the national level.  Having the majority in various state legislatures is key though. 

Areas such as the Northeast will see a decreased sizes in population. That will result in several Northeastern states losing congressional seats. The region has practically no congressional Republicans left. Connecticut’s Chris Shays was one of the last few holdouts and his overreaching attempts to appeal to  Democrat by essentially voting like a Democrat didn’t hack it. Republicans did not like his trying to be a liberal and liberals did not find him liberal enough so he’s out.

But the loss of seats through redistricting in the Northeast, where Republicans don’t have many seats, will favor Republicans where they are still strong….the South and West.

The census will show a strong increase in Southern population and so will the West. That means the representation lost in places like New Jersey and New York will be added to places like Florida and California, where the increased population will get increased representation. Except for California that bodes well for Republicans, but not in and of itself.

The party in power of each individual state legislature will ultimately determine the final redistricting maps. The party in charge at the time will create new districts that favor themselves and increases their own pluralities in their state capitol. They will do the same with their own states congressional delegation to washington, DC, as they draw congressional districts that favor their party as well.

So that means, if, for example, New Jersey has A Democrat Governor and a Democrat majority in the state senate and the state assembly, which they do now, Democrats will make their existing state legislative districts more favorable to electing Democrats. They will also draw congressional districts that are inclined to do the same. In fact, with the possible loss of one seat due to relatively decreased population growth, the Democrat dominated state legislature would probably emaciate one of the rare congressional districts that Republicans have held, forever, in Northern New Jersey. In the recent 2008 election, incumbent Republican Congressman Mike Fergusson retired and his seat was won by a Republican state senator named Leonard Lance. After redistricting, he and his seat will probably be gerrymandered out of existence.

This all points to the following .

  • The GOP Must Act Quickly

We need to select a Republican National Chairman who has a vision of inclusiveness and a passionate command of the issues and ideological fervor that is rooted in the conservative foundation that has always been the basis of our most productive legislative sessions and our most successful election cycles. That person must also have the capacity for exceptional organizational development and cutting edge thinking that can exploit the internet and the grassroots. The new chairman must also be willing to act quickly and accept the fact that we need to prepare for the redistricting process that begins in 2010.  Any loss of time leading up to 2010 will wreak havoc on our prospects for the decade to follow. (Newt…..are you reading this?)

  • A Bottom Up Strategy

The new Republican National Committee Chairman must immediately focus on and direct all resources to local and state legislative elections. This may sound out of place for the “national” committee, however, by the time the end of 2010 rolls around, it is the state level which will strongly effect our national prospects in the redistricting process that occurs at the start of the next decade.  By electing more officials on the bottom of the ballot, in stste elections, we will be better able to effect races further up the ballot.

By spending the next two years establishing strong candidates to run strong campaigns for state senate and assembly seats, we will increase control of the state legislative bodies that are ultimately responsible for the redistricting that they will undertake after the 2010 census results. With that power and opportunity we will be able to draw new congressional districts that are favorable for increasing Republican pluralities in the newly drawn seats that will be up for grabs in 2012.

Without control of the redistricting process Democrats will have the opportunity to gerrymander more Republicans out of office and make it even harder to get elected into office . That will only make the decade to come more difficult for us to increase our state legislative and congressional prospects.

The new chairman of the RNC, whoever it may be, better be willing to utilize the little time we have between now and then wisely. The once every decade redistricting process that the new chairman should prepare us for could have more of an effect on GOP prospects and our regaining majority status in congress than any of the elections that will follow

 punchline-politics21

GOOD ANSWERS

I guess I would have voted with the majority if it was a close vote. But I agree with the arguments the minority made.
–President Bill Clinton, on the 1991 Gulf War resolution

“I’m not going to have some reporters pawing through our papers. We are the president.”
–Hillary Clinton commenting on the release of subpoenaed documents

I haven’t committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law.
–David Dinkins, New York City Mayor, answering accusations that he failed to pay his taxes.

Things are more like they are now than they ever were before.
–Former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower

The streets are safe in Philadelphia. It’s only the people who make them unsafe.
–Frank Rizzo, ex-police chief and mayor of Philadelphia

I have lied in good faith.
— Bernard Tapie, French politician accused of fixing a soccar match involving the team he owned, when his sworn alibi fell apart in court.

I don’t need bodyguards.
–Jimmy Hoffa, labor leader

Outside of the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country.
–Mayor Marion Barry, Washington, DC

The police are not here to create disorder. They’re here to preserve disorder.”
–Former Chicago mayor Daley during the infamous 1968 Democratic Party convention

China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.
–Former French President Charles de Gaulle

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under politics