Plunging Towards Gomorrah
Posts tagged Democrat
A New Kind of Democrat
Jun 21st
If the liberal press had their way Texas Congressional nominee Kesha Rogers would be the new face of the Republican party. She’s wants the United States to get out of the United Nations. Plus, she wants to impeach the president? Why haven’t we heard of Rogers before? She’s a Democrat. Oops, there goes that talking point.
Rogers, 33, told TIME she is a “full time political activist” in the Lyndon LaRouche Youth Movement, a recruiting arm of the LaRouche political organization that is active on many college campuses. The LYM espouses LaRouche opposition to free trade and “globalism” (the UN, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund) and it also calls for a return to a humanist classical education, emphasizing the works of Plato and Leibnitz. On her professional looking campaign website, kesharogers.com, she touts the LaRouche political philosophy — a mix of support for the economic policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the impeachment of President Obama — and calls Obama a “London and Wall Street backed puppet” whose policies will destroy the Democratic Party. During the campaign, she was photographed carrying an oversized portrait of the President with a Hitler-style moustache penciled on his lip.
I can’t say I know much about Rogers political philosophy, but I must say I’m intrigued. The left is spending so much of its energy branding everyone on the right as crazy, but there’s more than enough to go around on the left.
Charlie “The Ego” Crist
Apr 29th
Charlie Crist, we love you because you represent everything we hate about politicians. Your political career isn’t about the people, it’s about you and your enormous ego. You’re not a Democrat, you’re not a Republican, and you’re certainly not an Independent. You should start the Crist Party. No one would be invited and no one would mind.
It's better to burn out than fade away... sometimes.
Democratic Congressman Fears Guam Will Capsize
Apr 2nd
There are all kinds of theories about the video below, but it is one for the ages. Rep. Hank Johnson is worried that a few more people in Guam might cause the island to “tip over and capsize.” No, really. If the populace is becoming so ignorant can we really be surprised our elected leaders are idiots as well?
Fake but Accurate: Pentagon Shooting Coverage
Mar 5th
The mainstream press’ coverage of the gunman in the Pentagon shooting has been predictable. Every time some anarchist attacks someone or something they’re labeled as right-wing extremists. These so-called journalists don’t even bother to dig a little to get to the truth. For example, the IRS incident involved a deranged man who bashed Bush and quoted from the Communist Manifesto. Check out the Christian Science Monitor’s coverage of the Pentagon shooting.
John Patrick Bedell, whom authorities identified as the gunman in the Pentagon shooting on Thursday, appears to have been a right-wing extremist with virulent antigovernment feelings.
If so, that would make the Pentagon shooting the second violent extremist attack on a federal building within the past month. On Feb. 18, Joseph Stack flew a small aircraft into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Mr. Stack left behind a disjointed screed in which, among other things, he expressed his hatred of the government.
“Appeared” is the key word because right-wing extremists aren’t registered Democrats. Right-wing extremists don’t post anti-Bush tirades all over the internet and they’re certainly not Truthers. Allahpundit over at Hot Air sums it up all very nicely.
Is it possible to be a “left-wing extremist” anymore or do nuts who embrace some lefty ideas before launching an attack automatically fall under the broader heading of “anti-government,” a term that’s conveniently also used to describe conservatives’ opposition to statism? That’s why CSM ended up labeling him a right-winger, I suspect. Righties want a smaller federal government and Bedell hated the military and the military’s part of the federal government. Voila!
It seems the mainstream press lives by the Dan Rather creed. It doesn’t matter what the truth is anymore. The news is fake but accurate.
The Partisan Economist: Paul Krugman
Nov 30th
I deeply respect what Paul Krugman accomplished as an economist. His work in new trade theory earned a Nobel Prize in economics. However, he has become so partisan in his editorials that he is quickly diminishing his reputation. He was on This Week with George Snuffleupagus… I mean Stephanopoulos… and he claimed that in the climate change debate “there is tremendously more money in being a skeptic than there is in being a supporter.” This ridiculous statement earned Krugman the Watts Up With That? quote of the week. I guess we can give Krugman a break since it appears climate change is not his area of expertise.
I wish that was the only problem with Krugman. Last week he wrote an article about the Tobin tax that was odd. It’s odd because for someone who is supposedly an intellectual giant in economics, he’s completely naïve when it comes to tax evasion. Greg Mankiw was left scratching his head after reading Krugman’s claim that financial transactions will not be moved if there’s a Tobin tax.
This is the danger of extreme partisanship, especially in regard to economics. Krugman is basically just endorsing whatever stupid new plan the Democrats come up with. From an economics perspective the Democrats don’t have many bright ideas right now. For Krugman I guess he’s decided to sheath the sword and just deal with the fallout. As long as the Democrats keep dreaming up new ways to tax productive people investors are going to quit investing. Until investors have confidence again the economy is going to stall. It seems like Krugman would understand this simple concept, but it appears he can’t see through his political blinders.
off-year election wrapup
Nov 4th
Here’s my quick take on the elections yesterday. Virginia is a red state again. The race for governor was a blow out. In New Jersey the Republican defeated the highly unpopular incumbent and in New York the Democrat won the special election for the House. What does it all mean?
Without Obama on the ticket it’s tough to get the Democrat base out to vote. Democrats will not be successful in battleground states if their party is perceived as the tax and spend party. The GOP is a joke. They picked Dede Scozzafava to run in the special election in New York and when she dropped out she endorsed the Democrat. If the GOP had picked Hoffman there’s a better chance he would have won. It says a lot about what the choices facing voters in the Northeast. They can either pick a Democrat or a Republican who is actually a Democrat.
New Jersey is purely a local election. Republican Chris Christie defeated incumbent John Corzine because New Jersey is a corrupt mess. I’ll stick with what I said on Monday. There’s not much to learn from an election like this, but the nation is looking more like 2004 than 2008,
grayson: the tough get going
Oct 8th
There are few certainties in politics, but Democratic congressman Alan Grayson will not be returning to Congress after the next election. Grayson is one of the Democrats that swept into office on the back of Obama and the anti-Republican sentiment in 2008. Grayson seems to have accepted his fate, becoming one of the most despicable demagogues on the Hill.
The combative Bronx-born congressman and Harvard-educated lawyer took to the floor of the House of Representatives last week, shocking the few Republicans within earshot when he dramatically declared the GOP health care plan is: “Don’t get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly.”
For some reason many members of The Daily Kos left believe that liberals aren’t “tough enough.” I’m not sure why they believe this since members of the New Left thought bombing was a good idea. I guess William Ayers has softened over the years. If only he would embrace his terrorist past so liberals would feel like they’re tough. his whole idea screams of the ends justifying the means. It’s also based on the idea that the opposition (anyone to the right of Joseph Lieberman) are evil zombies bent on turning the U.S. into a puritan religious state free of homosexuals, minorities, divorcees and atheists.
Does anyone really believe liberals are too nice?
The outrage from the left about health care is based on emotion. “Everyone should have access to affordable health care!” is their battle cry. How do you argue against that? In a perfect world I would agree with the sentiment. This isn’t a perfect world. Lifesaving treatment takes research, research takes money, money comes from investors, and investors want profit. Once profit is removed, the money dries up and innovation stops. Almost every technological innovation over the past 200 years has come from the private sector. The government is too big, too inefficient, and too shortsighted to run or produce anything effectively. It’s simple economics that has been empirically proven time and again throughout history.
After Joe Wilson’s unfortunate “You Lie” moment he was forced to apologize. Conversely, there seems to be no movement in the House to force Grayson to tone down his rhetoric. Grayson is enjoying his newfound celebrity as a liberal hero, but it’s not likely he’ll win re-election in a Republican-leaning district that was once home to Bill McCollum. Grayson will live on with guest spots on MSNBC and Bill Maher, but he’ll never win anyone over. He’ll be tough, though, I guess that counts for something.
american angst
Sep 21st
The past two months have been difficult for the Obama administration. The White House has learned that Americans still do not trust the government. Well, maybe “learned” is too strong. I’m not sure the White House gets it. However, the conventional wisdom about the 2008 election is starting to shift. Originally, the election was the “end of conservatism.” Bush’s unpopularity created an unfair perception that the United States had moved to the left. Liberals so blinded by partisanship didn’t realize that Bush wasn’t conservative.
Most of Bush’s domestic agenda was opposed by mainstream conservatives. The National Review opposed No Child Left Behind, the Prescription Drug Bill, the creation of Department of Homeland Security, and the immigration amnesty bill. Conservatives have been appalled by the spending spree in Washington. Americans were appalled as well. The Democrats who won swing districts in 2006 ran as conservatives. They didn’t promise government health care. They promised to reduce the debt.
The growing angst in America comes from the fact that President Obama seems unconcerned about reducing our debt. Instead of tackling Medicare and Social Security the President wants to burden the nation with costly climate change and health care bills. After promising more transparency and less pork, the stimulus package the President signed is a perfect example of government waste.
Obama successful tapped into the American angst with Washington when he ran for President, but he’s been unwilling to reduce the size and scope of government. I’ve never seen so much angst with Washington. Obama had a tremendous opportunity to lead the nation toward real change, but instead he represents the problem. Obama is a more liberal version of Bush. Conservatives and independents didn’t like the first version and they’ll hate the second version.
Who can successfully represent America? The Republicans don’t have anyone that I see on the horizon. A lot can change over the next few years, but there’s a huge opportunity for a new leader to connect to Americans in a very dramatic way.
will obama change?
Sep 2nd
The following headline from CNN caught my attention: “Obama considers major speech on health care, aide says.” How many “major speeches” has the President given so far? What has he said that’s remotely memorable? “Hope,” “change,” and “yes we can” might be memorable, but they’re not exactly full of substance. For the past two months the President has campaigned for health care. On September 9th he’s going to give a speech before Congress. During his campaign he’s continued to mislead the public about the health care plans on the table. What can the President possibly say at this point that’s going to change the debate?
This is the first true test of Obama’s young presidency. Will President Obama take a stand? Will he say something specific? Will he tell Congress what he wants? The two biggest achievements this year for the White House have been the stimulus package that turned into a colossal pork bill and the confirmation of Justice Sotomayor. Neither one of these were very popular with the American people. Americans are ready for sensible reform to health care, but the President seems opposed and aloof when it comes to debating real change.
Obama is ready to give a new speech on health care. This time he really means business.
During the campaign Obama promised to take on the special interests and stand up for the little guy, but here we are barely eight months into Obama’s presidency and he’s taken tort reform off the table. Obama doesn’t want to take on the trial lawyers in his own party because he’s just another ordinary politician who is more concerned with his party than with the American people. If you’ve anointed yourself as some kind of “different” politician and you fail to deliver it’s bad for business.
Then there’s the promise of bipartisanship that was a crucial part of the Obama Unicorn. I say Unicorn because it’s mythical creature that no one believes is real, kind of like my generation’s chance of receiving Social Security. Actually, there’s a better chance that Unicorns are real than the chance I ever receive a check for Social Security. With a super majority in both the House and the Senate one would think that demonizing the opposition wouldn’t be a priority. But apparently it is, and is part and parcel with this new era of change and hope that was supposed to change America’s bitter politics and gap the political divide forever in a land called Honah Lee:
Another administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity when discussing strategy, said the new phase was “driven in part by the actions of some in the GOP,” including Sens. Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Mike Enzi of Wyoming. The official added the White House believes those actions indicate that these two key Republicans, who are part of a bipartisan group negotiating a health care bill, “are essentially walking away from the table.”
This isn’t news to me, but the Democrat definition of bipartisanship means shut up and agree with them. What else can be gathered from that quote above? What sane Republican (if there are any in Washington) would agree to any of the terrible ideas being thrown about in Congress? The sad reality is that the Congress will likely pass some kind of watered down compromise bill that won’t make the left happy, won’t help, and will make things worse. It won’t matter because, politically at least, Obama will have his “health care reform.” We’ve seen this before; it was called the Prescription Drug Bill passed by President Bush. It’s funny how much change looks the same.
souter: cnn’s favorite moderate
May 1st
CNN has written a preposterous profile on Justice Souter. Things start going downhill with the headline: Souter known as low-key, fierce defender of individual rights. According to whom? I guess this works If the individual is a member of the government trying to seize someone’s property for tax purposes or a woman trying to suck the brains out her baby in the third trimester. Souter voted with the liberal bloc on almost every issue, but this is how CNN sums up his tenure.
Souter was in many ways a typical, old-fashioned Yankee Republican — a moderate with an independent, even quirky streak. Whether he became more liberal in his views after joining the Supreme Court, as many conservatives believe, may depend on your politics.
Ah, it’s the old “independent streak” farce that journalists love. Since 80% of journalists vote consistently for Democrats the idea of “independence” means fleeing from conservative ideals. The court was tilted to the left when Souter was appointed. I’m not sure how siding with the liberal bloc provides Souter with a mythical independent streak. Does CNN also believe that the British Empire fought for independence during the American Revolution? Was Benedict Arnold just “a moderate with an independent, even quirky streak?” Souter’s political ideology is evident since he waited to retire after Bush was out of office. Souter hates Washington, but he loves the liberal bloc more.
Whether Arnold became a traitor during the war, as many Americans believe, may depend on your politics
If Obama nominates a “moderate” Justice (I know it’s impossible, but humor me) who later repeals Roe v. Wade, does anyone believe that will be considered “independent” by the sophists at CNN? More likely CNN would paint this person as a cowardly traitor who can’t conjure up an original thought and who followed the extreme Roberts side of the court. Souter’s place on the court isn’t up for much debate except, apparently, at CNN.
It’s been an interesting week in politics. Obama held a press conference in honor of his 100th day in office. The man loves himself. Senator Specter changed parties and there’s been a lot written about the “big tent” of the republican party losing another member. Although it’s a bit of stretch because Specter has never really been a strong member of the caucus. It’s amazing republicans put up with him for so long. Compare Specter to how the Democrats treated Joe Lieberman. Lieberman has been a solid liberal in the Senate. His only crime is supporting the war. I guess the “big tent” didn’t have room for him. The idea that the left is more tolerant than the right is nonsense, but as long as the mainstream press is liberal these are the faux realties we have to deal with as conservatives.
