...and should jump ship before it's too late...
In one of my blogposts on MySpace, I said with great conviction, that I would ne-VUH, EVUH vote for Senator John S. McCain. I could not understand how he was so successful in the Republican primaries last year, especially since a majority of conservatives had shown him very little respect. I continued to be dumbfounded as my first prediction, second, and subsequent favs had all dropped out due to McCain's seemingly unstoppable machine. I was also watching the Democratic primaries, and hoping that Hillary Clinton would emerge victorious against one weak-willed candidate and a weaker-willed Glass Joe. If Hillary Clinton had won the Democratic primary, I'd vote a Democrat for president for the first time since 2000. Well, it was not to be and we had the fortune (or misfortune, depending on how you look at it) of having a media anointed "maverick" compete against the media anointed "Golden Child."
I joked with my coworkers that I'd be placing my finger next to Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president, until Sarah Palin was named John McCain's running mate. Her speech at the Republican National Committee made me feel great to be an Amurican, in stark contrast to Barack Obama's, which apologized to the rest of the world for having been born in Amurica. I voted for Sarah Palin and her running mate in the hopes that her conservatism would keep McCain from further destroying his conservative bonafides. Again, my sinister plan was thwarted and Barry-O was victorious. I thought his choice to keep Robert Gates as SECDEF was a very good move, and would seek to provide him cover against conservatives who thought he'd foul up our successes on the "war" front. I also respected, and applauded, his choice to make former New York Senator Hillary Clinton, his Secretary of State. To me, she comes across as an advocate for strong national security, and an advocate for a tough, but smart, foreign policy. So far, from what it seems, and as Hanson reiterates, Clinton's mark on the office is being impeded by Obama's Apology Tours and the incessant number of policy czars and roving ambassadors, whose role usually fall to the Secretary of State.
I believe this move by Obama, outside of his effort to fool the electorate into believing he's a moderate, was to stymie another primary challenge from Clinton in 2012. I believe that if Obama's ratings continue to drop, he will have to do more than marginalize Clinton to prevent a more moderate Democrat from besting him in the primary. It is becoming clearer to the electorate that the moderate Obama they supported, is not the Obama occupying the White House. So far, it seems even liberals are willing to dump Obama, according to Ed Schultz, but not because they agree with Republicans, but that Obama The Liberal isn't being liberal enough.
Beneath all the hype surrounding ObamaCare, there is an issue on which conservatives seem to agree with Obama. His prosecution of the War on Terror in the Afghan theater is supported by more Republicans than Democrats, according to a February 2009Gallup poll. Democrats, on the other hand, now believe Afghanistan is not worth fighting anymore, which is not what we heard from liberals' wailing about Iraq. Between their calls for Operation Iraqi Freedom supporters to enlist, liberals repeated the charge that BushCo had taken their eyes off the ball by invading Iraq. While I think it's over the top to accuse liberals of being wimps on terror, it does seem that their opposition to Iraq lie in the fact that they opposed an issue because Bush supported it.
I was dogged in my support of Iraq and I will remain dogged in my support of Afghanistan. The more we keep the terrorists wondering if today will be their last, the safer our nation. The situation in Iraq looked bleak before President Bush announced the surge, and since then, the situation has remarkably improved. The same will occur in Afghanistan. Things get worse before they get better.
Have a great day...
20 August 2009
Democrats in 2001-2008: Namecalling against your opponents is a sign of your patriotic duty to dissent!
Democrats in 2009: Namecalling is un-Amurican!
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.Only now, are we seeing these liberal revisionists claiming they condemned the rhetoric of their ideological cohorts during the Bush years. They're still under this delusion that each and every protester who brings a gun to an Obama event is a GOP operative. In some cases, they attribute one of their own to the Right. If this behavior is being criticized by liberals now, then it should be criticized when a Republican is targeted. But liberals are counting on the electorate to believe their lies...
Have a great day...
I just want to get something out in the open. Death threats against public officials is wrong, and should not be tolerated by either side of the political spectrum. It should not matter whether a person agrees with the political ideology of a given official, but advocating murder is a crime and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. By no means is what I am about to blog about a tu quoque logical fallacy, taken literally means "thou also," and means "since you guys started it, our side is justified in engaging in the same action." What I would like to point out is the hypocrisy we see coming from the Obamedia and their liberal hypocritical acolytes, who are whipped into a frenzy over death threats to Obama, but remained silent with death threats to his Republican predecessor.
I'm sure there were liberals out there who were calling on their ideological brothers and sisters to "calm down with the threats" (Oh wait, that was San Fran Nan to President Bush...) against public officials. If there were, they certainly weren't being heard through the blue blogosphere(According to USAToday, then-Senator Hillary Clinton called Death of a President "despicable"). In fact, in an unrelated story, liberals actually complained that the assassination attempt against former Vice President Cheney failed. Randi Rhodes was investigated for calling for the assassination of the former President (it should be worth noting that she was suspended from Err Amurica Radio, not for that, but for calling Hillary Clinton a "whore," so I guess a majority of liberals were okay with killing George Bush and Dick Cheney). The media portrayed liberals' advocacy of Bush's assassination as overblown, but as a threat to society in the Age of Obama. The people carrying guns to Obama events are racists, and the media will go through great pains to prove it like Mess-NBC did, while those threatening President Bush were everyday frustrated Amuricans.
Liberals love to lie and claim that protesters outside Bush events were arrested for wearing clothing that spoke unfavorably to the former president. Zombie at Zomblog calls out the lying liberals and states that oftentimes, the people dreaming for Bush's killing were never investigated, even when they explicitly or implicitly called for it. Based on his post, it appears those who had been arrested at Bush events violated federal laws by protesting in restricted areas or interrupting a speech and refusing to leave an area when asked. Since the media is hellbent on reporting every single threat against Obama in their campaign to portray conservatives as "racists," they should have pursued threats against Bushie with the same vigor, instead of yawning like they did at the 2000 Texas Republican Convention. That was my point, which seemed to be lost on liberals at The Reaction, that if liberals detest "hate-speech," they should detest all of it, not just the speech coming from their political adversaries (The same goes for the Right).
It is dishonest for liberals to continue whitewashing their antics over the past eight years in an effort to portray themselves as rational.
Have a great day...
19 August 2009
Democrats: We're gonna take our ball and go home...
...and whine about Republican "obstructionism..."
Feeling the heat from not only their constituencies and Congressional Republicans, Democrats seem hellbent on doing something to save their political asses for next year's midterms. It has been President Obama who made ObamaCare the keystone of his presidency, and by god, he's going to call on Congressional Democrats to get something on his desk before the year's out. According to the Politico, it has been Obama who's been adamant about excluding Republican alternatives to his ObamaCare plan. We recall during the Porkulus "debate," how Obama attacked GOP strawmen and Rush Limbaugh by telling the GOP that they had to stop listening to him in order to get things done...and that "he won."
The New York Times is reporting Senate Democrats are mulling the use of a 1974 Senate rule, "reconciliation," to force a simple majority vote on ObamaCare. Ed Morrissey notes the difficulty Democrats will experience if they decide to go this route. Meanwhile, liberals whine that it has been used by Republicans before, except in this case, a majority of the electorate don't support the legislation being considered for "reconciliation." I would presume that if Democrats went ahead with this, they'll pay a political price next year. A better strategy is to listen and seriously consider Republican proposals and cease with the demagoguery.
One can always deduce the motive behind Democratic attempts to ramrod this crap down the throat of Amuricans. Bloomberg is reporting that an ad agency that is creating ads to garner support for ObamaCare owes Senior White House Advisor, David "Astroturf" Axelrod, money and happens to employ his son. Don't expect liberals to cry foul, as they did when Halliburton received contracts for work in Iraq, claiming Cheney's involvement was a conflict-of-interest. Take a sniff...Democrat projection always has that funny smell. Who is it that Democrats claim are on the take again?!?!
It isn't only Republicans who are having drawbacks to this bill. Conservative Democrats continue to have problems with it, and their constituency is continuing to make them aware of their opposition. I'm willing to bet that if the so-called "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party mollified the more conservative members, they'll peel some Republicans as well. The more the bill seeks to placate leftists, instead of all Amuricans, the more willing the opposition feels determined to kill the bill.
It's not that Republicans had no ideas, it's just their ideas weren't considered...
Have a great day...
Feeling the heat from not only their constituencies and Congressional Republicans, Democrats seem hellbent on doing something to save their political asses for next year's midterms. It has been President Obama who made ObamaCare the keystone of his presidency, and by god, he's going to call on Congressional Democrats to get something on his desk before the year's out. According to the Politico, it has been Obama who's been adamant about excluding Republican alternatives to his ObamaCare plan. We recall during the Porkulus "debate," how Obama attacked GOP strawmen and Rush Limbaugh by telling the GOP that they had to stop listening to him in order to get things done...and that "he won."
The New York Times is reporting Senate Democrats are mulling the use of a 1974 Senate rule, "reconciliation," to force a simple majority vote on ObamaCare. Ed Morrissey notes the difficulty Democrats will experience if they decide to go this route. Meanwhile, liberals whine that it has been used by Republicans before, except in this case, a majority of the electorate don't support the legislation being considered for "reconciliation." I would presume that if Democrats went ahead with this, they'll pay a political price next year. A better strategy is to listen and seriously consider Republican proposals and cease with the demagoguery.
One can always deduce the motive behind Democratic attempts to ramrod this crap down the throat of Amuricans. Bloomberg is reporting that an ad agency that is creating ads to garner support for ObamaCare owes Senior White House Advisor, David "Astroturf" Axelrod, money and happens to employ his son. Don't expect liberals to cry foul, as they did when Halliburton received contracts for work in Iraq, claiming Cheney's involvement was a conflict-of-interest. Take a sniff...Democrat projection always has that funny smell. Who is it that Democrats claim are on the take again?!?!
It isn't only Republicans who are having drawbacks to this bill. Conservative Democrats continue to have problems with it, and their constituency is continuing to make them aware of their opposition. I'm willing to bet that if the so-called "progressive" wing of the Democratic Party mollified the more conservative members, they'll peel some Republicans as well. The more the bill seeks to placate leftists, instead of all Amuricans, the more willing the opposition feels determined to kill the bill.
It's not that Republicans had no ideas, it's just their ideas weren't considered...
Have a great day...
Eric Boehlert: The media is in the tank for the "reich-wing fascists..."
...and the Easter Bunny is real...
The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.
Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006.
Foser, like Yael Abouhalkah, shows his frustration over the Democrats' inability to win the debate on ObamaCare. Though he does level some blame on the Obamedia's unwillingness to tell the public about what's in the bill, his contempt for the town hall protesters is evident throughout his post. I admit, Foser is correct when he says the average person doesn't know much about history, science book, or the French they took, but I think Amuricans are smart enough to know a sham when they see one. Obama and Democrats took a great risk to ram this bill through Congress, with all its problems and expected no resistance. They expected Obama's flowery rhetoric and his "leadership" to bedazzle the electorate into believing that this plan would solve their healthcare woes. It's disingenuous to claim town hall protesters don't want debate, when Obama expected this bill on his desk before Congress broke for recess this month. h/t: Jonah Goldberg
Santore rounds out the trifecta by taking a swipe at Sarah Palin for her description of Section 1233 as a "death panel." Toeing the liberal belief that since the media and they, said it's not in the bill, let the issue rest, he goes after several prominent conservatives for pushing what he sees as misinformation and fanning the flames of fear, a tactic that was routinely used by liberals for the past eight years. Obviously, in Santore's world, not to mention in the minds of other liberals, it has been only been conservatives who are spreading so-called "lies" about ObamaCare and shutting down town halls and engaging in violent rhetoric. It should be clear to the rest of us that these liberals have been living in a bubble, or at best, don't believe their own words. It seems liberals are hellbent on continuing to spray vitriol all over legitimate concerns, despite the polls showing how ridiculous a strategy it is.
Liberals may continue to bitch and moan about Republicans appearing to cast the theory of bipartisanship to the four winds, but it has always been liberals, especially in the ranks of the House leadership, who has been hostile to each and every Republican proposal. Democrats are hoping the electorate doesn't become wise to their scheme, to reject Republican proposals and bitch because they won't support a solid Democratic bill. Who's the bipartisan here?
Have a great day...
The collective senior fellows at Hillary Clinton-George Soros backed Media Matters for America have determined that the time for talking about ObamaCare has passed. Eric Boehlert compares the town hall protesters to the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Jamison Foser claims that public policy is too complex for the ignorant masses, and John Santore whines about Sarah Palin evoking nuance in calling HR 3200, Section 1233, a prescription for "death panels." It must be hard to level criticism at people who are to blame for this mess, it's easier to project feelings onto someone else, not that it's a strange and new phenomenon coming from liberals.
Boehlert complains that the media is giving too much air time to the town hall protesters in the same way they gave the "discredited" Swift Boat Veterans (SBVT). First off, I'd like to make it clear that to liberals, the SBVT has been discredited, everyone else realizes Senator Kerry embellished his record during the VietNam Conflict. He says that the media never gave the same airtime to the anti-war movement during the Bush Years, but meanwhile back on Earth, there have been several times when the Obamedia scrubbed the radical positions of anti-war groups such as, Code Pink, I-ANSWER, World Can't Wait (Don't you all miss Sunsara Taylor?), to portray demonstrators as frustrated everyday Amuricans...and it was top news. Speaker Mimi chastised "disruptors" at health care town halls, clearly showing she had an epiphany in 2009, like other liberals who now view dissent as manufactured, but was essential in 2006.
Foser, like Yael Abouhalkah, shows his frustration over the Democrats' inability to win the debate on ObamaCare. Though he does level some blame on the Obamedia's unwillingness to tell the public about what's in the bill, his contempt for the town hall protesters is evident throughout his post. I admit, Foser is correct when he says the average person doesn't know much about history, science book, or the French they took, but I think Amuricans are smart enough to know a sham when they see one. Obama and Democrats took a great risk to ram this bill through Congress, with all its problems and expected no resistance. They expected Obama's flowery rhetoric and his "leadership" to bedazzle the electorate into believing that this plan would solve their healthcare woes. It's disingenuous to claim town hall protesters don't want debate, when Obama expected this bill on his desk before Congress broke for recess this month. h/t: Jonah Goldberg
Santore rounds out the trifecta by taking a swipe at Sarah Palin for her description of Section 1233 as a "death panel." Toeing the liberal belief that since the media and they, said it's not in the bill, let the issue rest, he goes after several prominent conservatives for pushing what he sees as misinformation and fanning the flames of fear, a tactic that was routinely used by liberals for the past eight years. Obviously, in Santore's world, not to mention in the minds of other liberals, it has been only been conservatives who are spreading so-called "lies" about ObamaCare and shutting down town halls and engaging in violent rhetoric. It should be clear to the rest of us that these liberals have been living in a bubble, or at best, don't believe their own words. It seems liberals are hellbent on continuing to spray vitriol all over legitimate concerns, despite the polls showing how ridiculous a strategy it is.
Liberals may continue to bitch and moan about Republicans appearing to cast the theory of bipartisanship to the four winds, but it has always been liberals, especially in the ranks of the House leadership, who has been hostile to each and every Republican proposal. Democrats are hoping the electorate doesn't become wise to their scheme, to reject Republican proposals and bitch because they won't support a solid Democratic bill. Who's the bipartisan here?
Have a great day...
18 August 2009
Dr. Asten: And speaking about marginalizing dissent...
...here's Mark Karlin!
It's refreshing when someone inadvertently substantiates someone else's point of view. Usually, when I discuss an issue with someone, I try to stay on the topic at hand, up until the point the person I'm debating realizes they're losing and serves up a distraction. On a recent blog, I made the statement that the only thing I had seen from ObamaCare supporters were marginalization, demonization, and no rebuttals, and a response to that comment backed up my claim. The Supremes recently ruled that Troy Davis, convicted in the murder of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail in 1989, is able to present evidence to prove his innocence. Upon finding out Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, Mark Karlin declared them guilty of murder (Should I bother noting that he called Justice Thomas a "puppet"? No, silly wabbit, liberals can't be racists!).
I'm all for allowing defendants to present new evidence that supposedly proves their innocence, but demonizing Scalia and Thomas for noting how unprecedented it is for the Supremes to allow new evidence in a court case to trigger a habeas review, is highly off the mark. Davis never says that his constitutional rights had been violated, he's only calling for evidence to be considered to help determine his innocence. Scalia, nor Thomas, ever said it was ok for the federal and state government to execute an innocent man. Besides, it isn't clear that the evidence the court had been ordered to consider will overturn Davis' conviction. The idea here is, as it is with ObamaCare and Obama's policies, to marginalize those who have legitimate questions about Troy Davis' claim. h/t: publius at Obsidian Wings
Anti-death penalty advocates are using this case to show how disparate the application of the death penalty is. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, even if the Supreme's decision didn't address the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The question at the heart of the decision is whether it is constitutional for a court to conduct a new trial for a defendant who was previously convicted, yet found evidence to prove he's innocent. The only ones who are able to make that determination is the jury or the judge hearing the case. Someone else tell Alex Koppelman...
If the new evidence exonerates Davis, good for him. The justice system prevails once again, but if it doesn't, the justice system prevails once again. Because a man presents new evidence does not exonerate him automatically, so I would caution those who are making Troy Davis their cause célèbre to wait until the new case is decided...otherwise, they'll continue to look foolish.
Have a great day...
It's refreshing when someone inadvertently substantiates someone else's point of view. Usually, when I discuss an issue with someone, I try to stay on the topic at hand, up until the point the person I'm debating realizes they're losing and serves up a distraction. On a recent blog, I made the statement that the only thing I had seen from ObamaCare supporters were marginalization, demonization, and no rebuttals, and a response to that comment backed up my claim. The Supremes recently ruled that Troy Davis, convicted in the murder of an off-duty policeman, Mark MacPhail in 1989, is able to present evidence to prove his innocence. Upon finding out Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented, Mark Karlin declared them guilty of murder (Should I bother noting that he called Justice Thomas a "puppet"? No, silly wabbit, liberals can't be racists!).
I'm all for allowing defendants to present new evidence that supposedly proves their innocence, but demonizing Scalia and Thomas for noting how unprecedented it is for the Supremes to allow new evidence in a court case to trigger a habeas review, is highly off the mark. Davis never says that his constitutional rights had been violated, he's only calling for evidence to be considered to help determine his innocence. Scalia, nor Thomas, ever said it was ok for the federal and state government to execute an innocent man. Besides, it isn't clear that the evidence the court had been ordered to consider will overturn Davis' conviction. The idea here is, as it is with ObamaCare and Obama's policies, to marginalize those who have legitimate questions about Troy Davis' claim. h/t: publius at Obsidian Wings
Anti-death penalty advocates are using this case to show how disparate the application of the death penalty is. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, even if the Supreme's decision didn't address the issue of the constitutionality of the death penalty. The question at the heart of the decision is whether it is constitutional for a court to conduct a new trial for a defendant who was previously convicted, yet found evidence to prove he's innocent. The only ones who are able to make that determination is the jury or the judge hearing the case. Someone else tell Alex Koppelman...
If the new evidence exonerates Davis, good for him. The justice system prevails once again, but if it doesn't, the justice system prevails once again. Because a man presents new evidence does not exonerate him automatically, so I would caution those who are making Troy Davis their cause célèbre to wait until the new case is decided...otherwise, they'll continue to look foolish.
Have a great day...
Digby: Replacing conservative Democrats in conservative districts is a win for Obama...
...and Republicans are stupid!
DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.
Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye.
Roger Ebert weighs in on the questionable Section 1233, which mandates "end-of-life" counseling. One can draw similarities between this and the illegal immigration debates during 2006 and 2007. Opposition to government mandated "end-of-life" counseling is conflated to mean the opponents oppose all forms of "end-of-life" counseling, just as opposition to illegal immigration means opponents are "racists," that oppose immigration...oh, and "they hate Obama." No one takes issue with "end-of-life" counseling, when the government gets involved, by mandating it every five years, or sooner if a person is mentally ill, it gets people worried. No one who's railing against "death panels," save a few, have anything to say about that.
Seniors are worried, and are falling away from supporting ObamaCare, and the organizations who are hellbent on supporting it. Obama has proposed a cut to Medicare Advantage, which allows people under MediCare to pay premiums for coverage not available under their traditional MediCare plan (I bet liberals aren't going to call Obama out on that lie...). The only thing liberals seem to be focused on is making sure legitimate concerns are marginalized like kooks who bring guns to Obama greenhouse events. I stress that a majority of people are in support of healthcare reform, despite Obama and his acolytes' insistence of the contrary, they want ObamaCare to make our system more self-sustaining. How he intends to flood the system with his number, 47 million, and keep it "deficit neutral," is beyond me...and everyone else.
But it's only the Right who's lying...remember that!
Have a great day...
DKos/Research2K recently released a poll that is being used by some liberal blogs as evidence that it is only the Right who's lying in the ObamaCare debate. The numbers, to me at least, indicate that not very many people understand what is in the bills that make up ObamaCare. They aren't hearing the truth from their Democratic congressional delegation, and they're not hearing it from the Teleprompter-in-Chief. If it has only been the Right who's been lying about ObamaCare, then the Left should have been quick to explain why the Right's assertions were wrong. The only thing I've seen ObamaCare supporters do is demonize, marginalize, but offer no rebuttals.
Expressing frustration over conservative Democrats' objections about the bill, blue blogger, Digby, calls on Democrats to oust the Blue Dogs from Congress because he believes they will never side with the president (then why are they Democrats?). Does Digby's finger-wagging indignation lie in his ignorance of the districts these Blue Dog Democrats represent? If Blue Dogs fail to represent their conservative constituents, then a reversal of Rahm Emanuel's 2006 and 2008 strategy will occur. Instead of siding with conservatism-lite, they'll go for the full monty and vote Republican. If Democrats decide to pursue Digby's strategy and campaign against say, my congressman John Barrow (D-GA), by placing an outright liberal in the primary, and he wins, the voters here will go Republican. Digby will have to kiss Obamessiah's "successful" legislation goodbye.
Roger Ebert weighs in on the questionable Section 1233, which mandates "end-of-life" counseling. One can draw similarities between this and the illegal immigration debates during 2006 and 2007. Opposition to government mandated "end-of-life" counseling is conflated to mean the opponents oppose all forms of "end-of-life" counseling, just as opposition to illegal immigration means opponents are "racists," that oppose immigration...oh, and "they hate Obama." No one takes issue with "end-of-life" counseling, when the government gets involved, by mandating it every five years, or sooner if a person is mentally ill, it gets people worried. No one who's railing against "death panels," save a few, have anything to say about that.
Seniors are worried, and are falling away from supporting ObamaCare, and the organizations who are hellbent on supporting it. Obama has proposed a cut to Medicare Advantage, which allows people under MediCare to pay premiums for coverage not available under their traditional MediCare plan (I bet liberals aren't going to call Obama out on that lie...). The only thing liberals seem to be focused on is making sure legitimate concerns are marginalized like kooks who bring guns to Obama greenhouse events. I stress that a majority of people are in support of healthcare reform, despite Obama and his acolytes' insistence of the contrary, they want ObamaCare to make our system more self-sustaining. How he intends to flood the system with his number, 47 million, and keep it "deficit neutral," is beyond me...and everyone else.
But it's only the Right who's lying...remember that!
Have a great day...
Liberals: Hey, let's boycott something, just for the hell of it...
...because we have nothing else better to do...
Liberals proclaim to the unsuspecting masses how much they care for the little guy. Minorities don't need to stand up for themselves, for the liberal will fight their battles for them. I'm reminded of a very funny episode of All in the Family, where the Bunkers are robbed by two black men, played by Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson. When the Bunkers arrive back home, they find out they've been robbed and become hostages of the robbers. In a discussion that breaks out, the robbers discuss their upbringing and soon discover that Archie is a "dyed in the wool bigot," and that his son-in-law, Mike, is a liberal, who called on Archie to understand the underlying social causes. The robbers chided Mike for talking about a subject he didn't understand.
GayPatriotWest talks about liberals who refuse to understand the fact that people have sincere concerns about their policies. Since liberal groups and protests are funded by the Wizard, they believe everyone else does it. There is always an ulterior motive to the "Tea Party" movement, the "Birthers," the town hall protesters, and the "Deathers." It's like the positions held by conservatives since dirt was new are now deemed "racist," because heaven forbid, there's a black man occupying the Oval Office. Under the guise of making corporate CEOs aware of the programs on which their companies advertise, liberals use what they, and no one else, find offensive to portray a television personality they don't like in a bad light. It's kinda funny when Rudy Giuliani, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin protested "Piss Christ," and Verizon's sponsorship of Akon after his Trinidad incident, respectively, liberals claimed a "chill" was felt over their right to free speech...
Liberals are gleefully talking about companies jumping ship from Glenn Beck's Fox News program, in light of his assertion of calling President Obama a "racist." Usually, when someone's called a "racist," it is liberals who are demanding someone's head on a platter. It was a marked policy shift for liberals to come out against alleged false charges of racism, after parroting that very belief since the Civil Rights Era ended. I would like to ask those liberals who are excited about sponsors pulling away from Beck, "what type of boycott moves their ads to another show on the same network?" and "since liberals are so adamant against 'hate-speech,' when are they going to start going after Keith Olbermann?" Their answers will reveal more than what they'd be trying to hide. One liberal responded to a comment I made on The Reaction that my blindness is preventing me from calling on a boycott of Keith Olbermann, thereby tacitly admitting that this boycott, and his support of it, is because he doesn't like the fact that Beck is conservative (I never knew liberals could be hypocritical...I definitely gotta get out more!).
Gateway Pundit has a post concerning Kenneth Gladney, the black man who suffered a beatdown from SEIU thugs for straying off the plantation, and a protest in front of the St. Louis branch of the NAACP over their silence surrounding the incident. The branch responded that no one contacted them to investigate, which is kinda silly, since they didn't need anyone to contact them on alleged disenfranchisement, or calling on the Cambridge PD to change its policies after Skip-gate, or deeming ObamaCare protesters as "racists." They just turn a blind eye to actual charges of racism, in the hopes of preserving the Democratic Party and its ideals. For if the US truly became a nation that has moved past its racial divide, it'd mark the end of the Democratic Party.
Something tells me that liberals are always looking for someone to replace Emmanuel Goldstein...
Don't you dare tell them thar liburls they're not smart!
Have a great day...
Liberals proclaim to the unsuspecting masses how much they care for the little guy. Minorities don't need to stand up for themselves, for the liberal will fight their battles for them. I'm reminded of a very funny episode of All in the Family, where the Bunkers are robbed by two black men, played by Cleavon Little and Demond Wilson. When the Bunkers arrive back home, they find out they've been robbed and become hostages of the robbers. In a discussion that breaks out, the robbers discuss their upbringing and soon discover that Archie is a "dyed in the wool bigot," and that his son-in-law, Mike, is a liberal, who called on Archie to understand the underlying social causes. The robbers chided Mike for talking about a subject he didn't understand.
GayPatriotWest talks about liberals who refuse to understand the fact that people have sincere concerns about their policies. Since liberal groups and protests are funded by the Wizard, they believe everyone else does it. There is always an ulterior motive to the "Tea Party" movement, the "Birthers," the town hall protesters, and the "Deathers." It's like the positions held by conservatives since dirt was new are now deemed "racist," because heaven forbid, there's a black man occupying the Oval Office. Under the guise of making corporate CEOs aware of the programs on which their companies advertise, liberals use what they, and no one else, find offensive to portray a television personality they don't like in a bad light. It's kinda funny when Rudy Giuliani, Laura Ingraham, and Michelle Malkin protested "Piss Christ," and Verizon's sponsorship of Akon after his Trinidad incident, respectively, liberals claimed a "chill" was felt over their right to free speech...
Liberals are gleefully talking about companies jumping ship from Glenn Beck's Fox News program, in light of his assertion of calling President Obama a "racist." Usually, when someone's called a "racist," it is liberals who are demanding someone's head on a platter. It was a marked policy shift for liberals to come out against alleged false charges of racism, after parroting that very belief since the Civil Rights Era ended. I would like to ask those liberals who are excited about sponsors pulling away from Beck, "what type of boycott moves their ads to another show on the same network?" and "since liberals are so adamant against 'hate-speech,' when are they going to start going after Keith Olbermann?" Their answers will reveal more than what they'd be trying to hide. One liberal responded to a comment I made on The Reaction that my blindness is preventing me from calling on a boycott of Keith Olbermann, thereby tacitly admitting that this boycott, and his support of it, is because he doesn't like the fact that Beck is conservative (I never knew liberals could be hypocritical...I definitely gotta get out more!).
Gateway Pundit has a post concerning Kenneth Gladney, the black man who suffered a beatdown from SEIU thugs for straying off the plantation, and a protest in front of the St. Louis branch of the NAACP over their silence surrounding the incident. The branch responded that no one contacted them to investigate, which is kinda silly, since they didn't need anyone to contact them on alleged disenfranchisement, or calling on the Cambridge PD to change its policies after Skip-gate, or deeming ObamaCare protesters as "racists." They just turn a blind eye to actual charges of racism, in the hopes of preserving the Democratic Party and its ideals. For if the US truly became a nation that has moved past its racial divide, it'd mark the end of the Democratic Party.
Something tells me that liberals are always looking for someone to replace Emmanuel Goldstein...
Don't you dare tell them thar liburls they're not smart!
Have a great day...
17 August 2009
James Carville: Hey, let's blame everything on Republicans and hope it works...
...that strategy helped us in '06 and '08, why wouldn't it work in '10 and '12?
James Carville was an integral part of the Clinton White House, so his latest claim, that forcing the GOP to filibuster ObamaCare would hurt them politically, is absurd. As I noted in a previous post, the 103rd Congress, that was debating HillaryCare, had more than enough votes to pass any and everything the liberal base wanted. No matter how many times Democrats tried to blame their failures on Republicans, the electorate refused to buy the spin. The major problem for HillaryCare lie in the former First Lady's refusal to listen to ideas that would make the bill better, the same is apparently true for Obama. His reliance on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to craft a "bipartisan" bill, knowing they're probably the most partisan people on the Hill, shows that he did not intend to compromise at all.
There is a brouhaha over former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey's assertion that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org ran two "Bush=Hitler" commercials in 2004. I would like to note that while MoveOn.org did not run the ads during Bushie's 2004 State of the Union address, they did condone them implicitly, since they did not condemn the comparison. With that said, I would like to focus on the ad that DID win the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, which showed children who'd be stuck paying for the alleged $1Trillion deficit, created by the Bush Administration. As I type this, there is an "Obama in 30 seconds" contest (though I would like to assume that no "Obama=Hitler" connections will occur in the fuzzy minds of liberals). I am willing to bet that none of the winning ads will tie Obama to the skyrocketing deficit, if anything, they'll remind us how much in lockstep liberals are with Obama's wrongheaded agenda.
In fact, there are some liberals who are still excusing Obama for voting "present," when he should be out in the trenches, and blaming Republicans. Donny Shaw notes that the White House hasn't really put their full weight behind the "public option," and the president's reticence on it would make it that much more difficult to garner votes in the US Senate. The reason ObamaCare will fail will be the blame of Obama and Democrats, not Republicans and the Right. Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's The Daily Show pretty much sums up left-wing talking points thusly.
I don't think that Glenn Beck, nor any other prominent conservative, believes our healthcare system is not in need of reform, contrary to Jon Stewart's assertion. I believe our healthcare system is the best in the world, BUT it should not be subjected to the type of revolution Obama and his acolytes wish to foist upon it. Liberals believe everything about the United States is eeevil and corrupt, and must fall in line with European dictates. There is no proof given by ObamaCare proponents that this bill will tweak our system, it will only degrade it, as many opponents fear. As I've always said, if the system being detailed in HR 3200 is the best thing since the iPod, members of Congress and the White House should subject themselves to it...but none of the ObamaCare proponents are talking about that. Instead, ObamaCare proponents rely on demagoguery to silence the bill's critics.
It seems that while liberals are demonizing the GOP for going back to 1994, they need to save even more vitriol for Democrats who are taking the debate there...
Have a great day...
James Carville was an integral part of the Clinton White House, so his latest claim, that forcing the GOP to filibuster ObamaCare would hurt them politically, is absurd. As I noted in a previous post, the 103rd Congress, that was debating HillaryCare, had more than enough votes to pass any and everything the liberal base wanted. No matter how many times Democrats tried to blame their failures on Republicans, the electorate refused to buy the spin. The major problem for HillaryCare lie in the former First Lady's refusal to listen to ideas that would make the bill better, the same is apparently true for Obama. His reliance on San Fran Nan and Pinky Reid to craft a "bipartisan" bill, knowing they're probably the most partisan people on the Hill, shows that he did not intend to compromise at all.
There is a brouhaha over former House Majority Leader, Dick Armey's assertion that the Soros-funded MoveOn.org ran two "Bush=Hitler" commercials in 2004. I would like to note that while MoveOn.org did not run the ads during Bushie's 2004 State of the Union address, they did condone them implicitly, since they did not condemn the comparison. With that said, I would like to focus on the ad that DID win the "Bush in 30 seconds" contest, which showed children who'd be stuck paying for the alleged $1Trillion deficit, created by the Bush Administration. As I type this, there is an "Obama in 30 seconds" contest (though I would like to assume that no "Obama=Hitler" connections will occur in the fuzzy minds of liberals). I am willing to bet that none of the winning ads will tie Obama to the skyrocketing deficit, if anything, they'll remind us how much in lockstep liberals are with Obama's wrongheaded agenda.
In fact, there are some liberals who are still excusing Obama for voting "present," when he should be out in the trenches, and blaming Republicans. Donny Shaw notes that the White House hasn't really put their full weight behind the "public option," and the president's reticence on it would make it that much more difficult to garner votes in the US Senate. The reason ObamaCare will fail will be the blame of Obama and Democrats, not Republicans and the Right. Jon Stewart, of Comedy Central's The Daily Show pretty much sums up left-wing talking points thusly.
I don't think that Glenn Beck, nor any other prominent conservative, believes our healthcare system is not in need of reform, contrary to Jon Stewart's assertion. I believe our healthcare system is the best in the world, BUT it should not be subjected to the type of revolution Obama and his acolytes wish to foist upon it. Liberals believe everything about the United States is eeevil and corrupt, and must fall in line with European dictates. There is no proof given by ObamaCare proponents that this bill will tweak our system, it will only degrade it, as many opponents fear. As I've always said, if the system being detailed in HR 3200 is the best thing since the iPod, members of Congress and the White House should subject themselves to it...but none of the ObamaCare proponents are talking about that. Instead, ObamaCare proponents rely on demagoguery to silence the bill's critics.
It seems that while liberals are demonizing the GOP for going back to 1994, they need to save even more vitriol for Democrats who are taking the debate there...
Have a great day...
Palin: My new anthem should be Mariah Carey's "Obsessed..."
...'cause I think Maureen Dowd can't "quit [me]..."
The "Good" McCain writes in a blogpost about New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd's latest obsession, Sarah Palin. I have to say that in the time Palin has been in the national spotlight, she's come across as a serious policy debater, much to the chagrin of her left-wing counterparts. She's still regarded as a "dumb hick" by many in the liberal blogosphere, who seem to still think that Obama is governing as a "post-partisan." Palin's focus on questionable portions in the House bill, H. R. 3200, shifted the debate from being spoon-fed Obama delusions about the legislation to the electorate asking their congressional representatives about said provisions. Soon, Obamessiah had to address Palin's assertions, although he fell flat on his face, and the US Senate is mulling whether to drop one or more provisions in their version of the bill, which could be misused.
So while Democrats and liberals continue to go after conservatives for asking the hard questions, they don't notice how the fumbling by the Obama Administration is helping to sink this ship. Very little of the ire coming from liberals focuses on Obama's modus operandi, which is voting "present," as being a major reason why this bill may end up being a watered down version of what they envisioned. They prefer, instead, to continue to push this notion that the protesters at town halls are paid members of the healthcare insurance lobby and pitchfork carrying listeners of Rush Limbaugh. Liberals see these protesters as opposing Obama the Man, and not protesting his policies, you know, like they did with President Bush...right? I would like to note that if liberals are going to start referring to the healthcare industry and ObamaCare opponents as "Swiftboaters," then they're admitting that the protesters of ObamaCare are at least on the right track.
Matt Taibbi, who recently accused Newt Gingrich of backtracking on supporting "end-of-life" counseling, when he did no such thing, writes in his latest post about feeling guilty by not lauding the accomplishments of the people he sees as wanting an actualgovernment takeover of the healthcare industry "fix" to our healthcare system. Upon the news that the Obama White House is waffling in its support of the so-called "public option," he tears into not only the House and Senate Democratic leadership, but against Obama by comparing them to...wait for it...George W. Bush. I mean, for a guy so hated by liberals, why are they calling on Obama to act more like him? The fact that the "public option" is being pushed further down the plank, like other provisions of the bill, should be a reason to scrap the entire thing and start over...
Fat chance, this is all to save the dear Obamessiah...Zandar told me so.
Have a great day...
The "Good" McCain writes in a blogpost about New York Times columnist, Maureen Dowd's latest obsession, Sarah Palin. I have to say that in the time Palin has been in the national spotlight, she's come across as a serious policy debater, much to the chagrin of her left-wing counterparts. She's still regarded as a "dumb hick" by many in the liberal blogosphere, who seem to still think that Obama is governing as a "post-partisan." Palin's focus on questionable portions in the House bill, H. R. 3200, shifted the debate from being spoon-fed Obama delusions about the legislation to the electorate asking their congressional representatives about said provisions. Soon, Obamessiah had to address Palin's assertions, although he fell flat on his face, and the US Senate is mulling whether to drop one or more provisions in their version of the bill, which could be misused.
So while Democrats and liberals continue to go after conservatives for asking the hard questions, they don't notice how the fumbling by the Obama Administration is helping to sink this ship. Very little of the ire coming from liberals focuses on Obama's modus operandi, which is voting "present," as being a major reason why this bill may end up being a watered down version of what they envisioned. They prefer, instead, to continue to push this notion that the protesters at town halls are paid members of the healthcare insurance lobby and pitchfork carrying listeners of Rush Limbaugh. Liberals see these protesters as opposing Obama the Man, and not protesting his policies, you know, like they did with President Bush...right? I would like to note that if liberals are going to start referring to the healthcare industry and ObamaCare opponents as "Swiftboaters," then they're admitting that the protesters of ObamaCare are at least on the right track.
Matt Taibbi, who recently accused Newt Gingrich of backtracking on supporting "end-of-life" counseling, when he did no such thing, writes in his latest post about feeling guilty by not lauding the accomplishments of the people he sees as wanting an actual
Fat chance, this is all to save the dear Obamessiah...Zandar told me so.
Have a great day...
Liberals: If ObamaCare goes down in defeat, it's because of "white guilt..."
...and Republicans...
No liberal better tell me they're smarter than conservatives ever, ever again. As more people continue to be appalled at the bills which make up ObamaCare, when they're exposed to the light, Democrats and liberals are still hoping that demonizing and marginalizing ObamaCare opponents will work. In one blogpost, Zandar, believes the opposition to ObamaCare, and his policies in general, is because of latent racism (while trying to convince people he's not calling them "racists"). A seemingly recurring theme on the liberal side is to portray the GOP as "happy with the status quo," even though a majority of the electorate, and the GOP, is not only "happy with the status quo," but are open for reform, not a takeover of the healthcare system. Democrats are hoping that the opposition we see in town halls all over the country, will turn into support in a few weeks (Ah, the faux outrage card). Based on that, it sounds like Democrats in the House will continue to push this crap over the objections of their constituents (when did that become a winning strategy?).
The president and Congressional Democrats are continuing to try and pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents. It's being reported throughout the blogosphere and the Obamedia, that the "public option," which would destroy the private insurance industry, may be on its way out the door, possibly picking a fight with the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party (but that won't be enough to keep them from voting for him if he decides to run for reelection...). This revelation prompted liberals to ask "Well, who IS Barack Obama..." (Shoulda listened to the Right and Hillary Clinton supporters, who were trying to tell you, instead of calling them "racists").
The idea that the "public option" is facing the knife blade is no reason to believe it will be gone for good. Since our Congress is made up of two houses, they must reconcile differences in various bills, then revote on the consolidated bill. The president receives the consolidated bill to sign into law. Usually, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader name conferees to the committee, based on their support of certain provisions in the bills, and whether the bills lie in the jurisdiction of the conferee's respective committee. For example, Pelosi appointed David Obey, Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Jerry Lewis, and David Camp to the conference committee during the Porkulus "debate." Once a bill, called a conference report, emerges from conference committee, they cannot be amended, they receive only an up or down vote. Nothing will prevent conferees from inserting the "public option" into a conference report. Folks, this battle is FAR from over.
It is common knowledge now that Obama has shown a lack of leadership during his presidency. He should have been the one pushing forhealthcare health care insurance reform from the beginning, instead of allowing the partisan House leadership to take the reins, and appearing to talk out of his hat. He's continuing to try and convince us of things in the bill that aren't. Steny Hoyer and Speaker Mimi are pretty much doing the same thing, despite the reports coming from the CBO. If the president wants to salvage ANYTHING from seeing the keystone of his presidency from going down in flames, he needs to tell us about it...and I'm not the only one who's saying that. If we are all going to be affected by this "reform," then we need to have a real debate and not rush into this, like Democrats and Obamabots want us to.
Have a great day...
No liberal better tell me they're smarter than conservatives ever, ever again. As more people continue to be appalled at the bills which make up ObamaCare, when they're exposed to the light, Democrats and liberals are still hoping that demonizing and marginalizing ObamaCare opponents will work. In one blogpost, Zandar, believes the opposition to ObamaCare, and his policies in general, is because of latent racism (while trying to convince people he's not calling them "racists"). A seemingly recurring theme on the liberal side is to portray the GOP as "happy with the status quo," even though a majority of the electorate, and the GOP, is not only "happy with the status quo," but are open for reform, not a takeover of the healthcare system. Democrats are hoping that the opposition we see in town halls all over the country, will turn into support in a few weeks (Ah, the faux outrage card). Based on that, it sounds like Democrats in the House will continue to push this crap over the objections of their constituents (when did that become a winning strategy?).
The president and Congressional Democrats are continuing to try and pull the wool over the eyes of their constituents. It's being reported throughout the blogosphere and the Obamedia, that the "public option," which would destroy the private insurance industry, may be on its way out the door, possibly picking a fight with the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party (but that won't be enough to keep them from voting for him if he decides to run for reelection...). This revelation prompted liberals to ask "Well, who IS Barack Obama..." (Shoulda listened to the Right and Hillary Clinton supporters, who were trying to tell you, instead of calling them "racists").
The idea that the "public option" is facing the knife blade is no reason to believe it will be gone for good. Since our Congress is made up of two houses, they must reconcile differences in various bills, then revote on the consolidated bill. The president receives the consolidated bill to sign into law. Usually, the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority Leader name conferees to the committee, based on their support of certain provisions in the bills, and whether the bills lie in the jurisdiction of the conferee's respective committee. For example, Pelosi appointed David Obey, Henry Waxman, Charlie Rangel, Jerry Lewis, and David Camp to the conference committee during the Porkulus "debate." Once a bill, called a conference report, emerges from conference committee, they cannot be amended, they receive only an up or down vote. Nothing will prevent conferees from inserting the "public option" into a conference report. Folks, this battle is FAR from over.
It is common knowledge now that Obama has shown a lack of leadership during his presidency. He should have been the one pushing for
Have a great day...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)