POWIP Piece of Work In Progress

21Jul/114

Just a reminder: None of the Senate Democrats Voted to Raise the Debt Ceiling in 2006

Not a single one; many of whom are still in the Senate...  It was a strict party line vote...From the Senate's website:

Grouped By Vote Position

YEAs —52
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chafee (R-RI)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)		 Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Enzi (R-WY)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)		 Murkowski (R-AK)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs —48
Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Coburn (R-OK)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)		 Durbin (D-IL)
Ensign (R-NV)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)		 Lincoln (D-AR)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Now I don't know about you, kind reader, but I don't recall any of the current hyperventilating that we're hearing these days, now that the shoe is on the other foot-so to speak.  Senate Democrats weren't being characterized as RAAAAACIST! h8terz; heartless politicians who wanted to see old people die-and be forced on to a cat food diet until that happened; who were abandoning our troops in the field without bullets or butter; who were denying our college kids the loans and grants they needed; who callously chose to deny poor children school means and the homeless a place to sleep; who were choosing Wall Street over Main Street-doing all these things to benefit "Big Oil" and corporate jet owners...

Help me out here if I'm wrong, but none of this comes to mind.  In fact, I remember a very passionate speech by a junior Senator at that time:

The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies. … Increasing America’s debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that ‘the buck stops here. Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.

Who said those stirring words? Why, none other than then-Senator, now-President, Obama.  And he was right, we do deserve better...

So next time you hear about how all of this is UNPRECEDENTED!, HYPERPARTISAN! HOSTAGE TAKING! on the part of the TALIBAN RETHUGS!, feel free to remind the speaker of the events of 2006.

In fact, if you live in a deep blue state, it might be handy to have this information at hand when you contact your Senator and ask them to vote FOR cloture on Saturday when the House's Cut, Cap, and Balance legislation is brought up.  Because if nothing else, CC&B deserves a fair vote in the Senate.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

Share
Tagged as: , , 4 Comments
18Jul/110

Are 70% tax rates on the way back in?

We're Broke!

Like in the bad old days before Ronnie Reagan reformed the tax code? Writing at WSJ, Michael Boskin seems to think it a matter or "when" and not "if":

Many Democrats demand no changes to Social Security and Medicare spending. But these programs are projected to run ever-growing deficits totaling tens of trillions of dollars in coming decades, primarily from rising real benefits per beneficiary. To cover these projected deficits would require continually higher income and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare on all taxpayers that would drive the combined marginal tax rate on labor income to more than 70% by 2035 and 80% by 2050. And that's before accounting for the Laffer effect, likely future interest costs, state deficits and the rising ratio of voters receiving government payments to those paying income taxes.

It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.

Nobody—rich, middle-income or poor—can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States—a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery.

Some argue the U.S. economy can easily bear higher pre-Reagan tax rates. They point to the 1930s-1950s, when top marginal rates were between 79% and 94%, or the Carter-era 1970s, when the top rate was about 70%. But those rates applied to a much smaller fraction of taxpayers and kicked in at much higher income levels relative to today.

There were also greater opportunities for sheltering income from the income tax. The lower marginal tax rates in the 1980s led to the best quarter-century of economic performance in American history. Large increases in tax rates are a recipe for economic stagnation, socioeconomic ossification, and the loss of American global competitiveness and leadership.

Amen to that last line. As perhaps one of the elders here, I can vividly recall what our economy was like before and after the tax code revisions in 1981.  Prior to that, wealthy Americans were less inclined to invest in businesses, whether their own or as a venture capitalists, than to make sure that a percentage of their wealth equal to the amount their accountants specified they needed to keep their net income below the rapacious higher bracket levels was invested in instruments known as "tax-shelters"; typically revenue neutral or money losing propositions, such as dilapidated real-estate or other run-down or underwater assets, instead of dynamic, growing concerns.  Which is at the heart of why the tax code changes really resulted in the ensuing economic boom.

As a nation, we can't afford to go back to the tax rates and the concomitant paradigm that existed before 1981. Indeed, the only reason we had been able to stand it, as a nation, between the rise of the welfare state under FDR until Reagan was because of the pre-eminent role that America enjoyed in the global economy; dominating all facets of global industry-smokestack, creative, and financial.

Due to many factors, such as globalization and the aggressive mercantilistic economic posture of China, in particular, not only can't we afford to placate big labor's extortionist-like hold on the public and private sector, but neither can we sustain our welfare state in it's current form or the tax burden to support it.  It's a luxury we can no longer afford...

I've long thought that Mr. Obama's plan was to run up budgets and deficits so high that pragmatism and responsibility would force us to enact large tax increases.  He's made great strides in his first two-and-one-half years in office, and believes himself to be nearing the goal of his threat today to veto any bill containing balanced budget amendment language in it is any indication.  He's determined to drag us to a Euro-style welfare state model by hook or by crook; and lately it looks more like the latter...

So I'd urge all to call or write their Representatives and Senators, the telephone numbers and e-mail contact info can be found at the House's and Senate's websites, and let them know where you stand on the matter; it's especially important to do so if you live in a deep-blue state like I do, just so they get the message.

[Cross posted at The Conservatory]

Rocketman

Share
Tagged as: , , , No Comments
3May/119

Post-Partisan Paragons of Perfidy shape “The Narrative”

More follow up to the earlier posts regarding Democrat efforts to "own" the revocation of ObL's respiration rights.  From Politico:

Just one day after the Navy SEALs’ daring raid, Democrats were already outlining plans to seize the opportunity to portray President Barack Obama as a decisive leader who should get full acclaim for green-lighting the assault that brought down bin Laden.

The subtle but unmistakable jockeying provided a revealing glimpse into how official Washington thinks: Even in a rare moment of national unity, the political stakes provide a temptation – and even an imperative – for the parties to jostle for maximum advantage.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters Monday that once Obama took office, “he made sure that we would revitalize our focus on Osama bin Laden and the hunt for him.”

But a former top intelligence officer, speaking on condition of anonymity, asserted that Bush routinely asked him about bin Laden during Thursday morning briefings about CIA operations.

“I’d walk in there and he would just say, ‘So where are we on bin Laden?’” the official said. “He was very focused on it – this was always a top priority. I’d think, ‘Oh, hell – he asked me that again.’”

And dozens of statements Monday from Republican officeholders mentioned Bush’s role after 9/11 – with several even quoting Bush as saying, “Whether we bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to our enemies, justice will be done.”

But one Democratic communications hand sent advice to a slew of other Democratic operatives in the wake of the announcement hammering on the need to make sure Obama comes out on top .

“In your day jobs, do not let Republicans turn this into continuing the Bush legacy. This has to be about Obama’s decisive leadership,” the guidance said. “He is the one who oversaw bringing bin Laden to justice, much like how Bush failed to do so at Tora Bora and then claimed Osama wasn’t a priority.”

[emphasis-ed.]

Gee, so that's why they all seemed like they were on the same page with this; they were! It was written in the memo...

It makes me wonder if Barney Frank isn't slipping a bit.  I mean, was he freelancing, or had he already received the talking points?

In the end though, as I've said before, it won't matter; the truth will come out.  In fact, ACE has an excellent, detailed, time-line of the events over the years that culminated in the successful SEAL team raid this past Sunday.  I'd suggest that you check it if only for your own edification.  And especially so if you live in a "deep blue" state like myself, and anticipate that this will be a hot topic on the summer barbecue/drinking circuit.

Because facts are stubborn things; and the facts are that it was a long way to Abbottabad.  And the very measures and actors that the aces of agitprop vilified for years are the same ones they are hailing today.  Indeed, our pal Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has a set of clips posted which illustrate how the Make-Believe-Media used to engage in moral posturing, vis-a-vis "torture", which they are suddenly very quiet about in the wake of Sunday's announcement.  What a difference having a Democrat in the White House makes...

Rocketman

Share
Tagged as: , , , , , 9 Comments
1Nov/101

Change!: Obamacrats suddenly open to idea of extending all of the Bush tax cuts

Well, that is, in a manner of speaking.  But in what I sense to be a new meme rising, and admittedly what also appears to be akin to a sinner's death-bed conversion on the eve of an election where the public seems poised to hand them their hats and show them to the door, Bloomberg news reports that the White House and leading Democrats are suddenly "open" to the idea of extending all of the Bush tax cuts:

The Obama administration is considering a plan that would preserve tax breaks for both the wealthy and the middle class as it faces likely Democratic losses in the Nov. 2 midterm elections, the Washington Post reported.

Administration officials are discussing “decoupling” the Bush-era tax cuts to allow permanent extension for families making less than $250,000 a year and temporary extension of cuts for those making more, the newspaper said, citing people familiar with talks at the White House and among senior congressional Democrats. The Republicans would then be under pressure to defend extending the cuts for the wealthy as they expired in a year or two.

Now, in all honesty I'll never understand why these tax cuts were allowed to "sunset" after a number of years in the first place.  All it did was set up the coming messy class warfare battle.  I recall it was part of getting the Democrats to sign on in the first place, so maybe they figured strategically it could serve them well later.  But it could not have come up at a worse time for them, from an electoral sense.  Especially given the statist nature of the Obama legislative agenda and what are sure to be calls for tax increases by his erstwhile blue-ribbon deficit commision.

Judging from the article, it appears that they are "strategerizing" again, by trying to address the cuts individually; planning to permanently pass the one below $250k but have the ones above that threshold expire just in time for the 2012 election.  Just ducky...

Were I the in the Republican ledership I would reject this cynical ploy out of hand, sticking instead with the principled position on making all of the tax cuts permanent.  I would continue to call out the Democrats for their misguided, unabashedly redistributionist, class warfare tactics.  Opening each press statement by reminding the public that the Democrat's irresponsibly left town without settling this matter before the elections, I would see just how many narrowly re-elected Democrats had the stomach to stick with the White House in their Leninist attempt to pit the middle class against the more economically successful.

I'd fight this battle because, trust me, there are much uglier ones comin' down the pike that will involve all the same elements.

The time for laying down is through.  The public will have made their wishes crystal clear by then.  One of the promises the Republicans made on the stump was to make these tax cuts permanent.  It seems to me, then, like a good place to begin taking care of business...

TCB Baby!

Rocketman

Share
Tagged as: , , , 1 Comment
27Oct/102

Democrats Create Exotic Financial Instrument To Fund Campaign

Over at PJM, Richard Pollack had the most interesting article of the day, on the possibility that the Democrats have collateralized their donors list in order to secure campaign funding from Bailed-Out America:

Shortly after Labor Day, as polls continued to sink, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) realized it needed a cash infusion for the upcoming midterm elections. Its chairman, former Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, turned to the Bank of America to secure a $15 million revolving credit line. Then, in the middle of this month, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) got another loan from BofA for an additional $17 million.

What was their collateral? It turns out, not much.

The DNC claims their collateral was an intangible piece of property — its donor mailing list. The DCCC only cites unnamed “assets.” Neither party organization possesses real estate even close to cover the $32 million. The DNC’s headquarters is owned by another entity. Even it was put up as collateral, its market value was last estimated at only $13.7 million.

Were the Bank of America deals legitimate, arms-length transactions, or were they cozy sweetheart deals in which nothing was really put up to secure a $32 million loan?

And if it was the latter, could it be considered an illegal campaign contribution from the largest bank holding company in America?

There also is troubling evidence that two days before closing on the loan transaction, the DNC changed its own privacy provisions to allow the selling or sharing of private donor data.

If that's so, then maybe Olivia Wilde ought to be making future dystopia vids about DemocraCorpse.

It's not that Michelle Malkin's round-up of whitewashed Democrat voter fraud isn't excellent. It is:

For the past two years, Democratic leaders have had nothing to say about the militant New Black Panther Party goons who took it upon themselves to police a Philadelphia voting booth in 2008 wielding billy clubs and shouting anti-white slurs to suppress votes. Now, they’re treating citizen election monitors as if they are the jack-booted thugs. When I lauded efforts like the Minnesota Majority, which is training volunteers to watch polls and report on voter fraud, liberal critics accused me this week of “fascism.”

Silence dissent. Criminalize watchdogs. Whitewash fraud. Discourage grassroots engagement. Deny, deny, deny. These are the signature tactics of the left in the age of Obama. On November 2, Americans get their chance to say: Enough.

The news that Obama had a meeting with high-profile lefty bloggers is kind of interesting, too. It's also funny that the UN has been hit by bedbugs. But the extent to which the Obamaists will reach to try to retain and accumulate power is well represented by the FOIA requests to the US Army:

The Democratic National Committee has asked the Pentagon to provide records of correspondence between the Army
and nine potential challengers to President Obama in 2012, Fox News has confirmed, giving a unique glimpse of part of what appears to be the Democrats' opposition research strategy.

ABC News first reported an internal Army e-mail that indicates the DNC filed Freedom of Information Act requests for "any and all records of communication" between military agencies and Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney, Haley Barbour, Tim Pawlenty, Newt Gingrich, John Thune, Mitch Daniels and Bobby Jindal, all of whom are considering campaigning for the White House.

There is simply no US governmental institution that these guys won't politicize if they think it gives them an advantage. The idea of using the Pentagon to conduct oppo research is bad enough, but when you consider that they are hiring people at substantial salaries to create Treasury exemptions to FOIA requests, you understand. Transparency.

At the same time, the DoJ just can't be bothered to ensure those military guys get the chance to vote.

Among those things that seem to have gotten lost in all this election news is the announcement from Crain's Chicago Business that Chicago mall Water Tower Place, owned by General Growth, Inc., just emerging from Chapter 11 reorganization, has secured a $200 million loan. The writer at pains to quote people saying that even at this time it's not unusual for such a top-value piece of property, but the skepticism kind of leaks out:

General Growth Properties Inc. has secured a $200-million loan to refinance the Water Tower Place mall on Michigan Avenue, reflecting the much-improved lending climate for trophy properties unscathed by the recession.

The new loan from Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. is even bigger than the $188-million loan it replaces, a rarity today as lenders have become more conservative and property values remain well below their peak of a few years ago. Yet lenders have become increasingly aggressive in recent months, offering attractive terms for top properties in big cities like Chicago.

“For the very best properties, I would call it a frenzy,” says David Hendrickson, a managing director at Jones Lang LaSalle Inc. “You've got the haves and the have-nots, and Water Tower is a have.”

The loan represents another task Chicago-based General Growth can check off its to-do list as it prepares to emerge from Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection next month. The old loan matured Sept. 1, and the General Growth joint venture that owns the 818,000-square-foot mall had sought an extension of the due date, something it no longer needs now that it has a new loan.

The Water Tower joint venture, which is not included in the Chapter 11 case, obtained the MetLife loan Sept. 28, according to a mortgage filed with the Cook County Recorder. A General Growth spokesman declines to comment, and a spokesman for New York-based MetLife did not return a phone call.

Insurers have donated more heavily to Democrats than Republicans, recently, in large part in order to have the clout to take part in the very messy health care negotiations that Obama cut Big Pharma into:

The top three Senate recipients for insurance industry contributions -- all Democrats -- are Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Harry Reid, D-Nev., according to the center's research. And in the House, it's another trio of Democrats: Reps. Melissa Bean, D-Ill., Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D., and Barney Frank, D-Mass. All have played key roles in federal insurance matters.

The guy behind a lot of General Growth's moving and shaking is one Bill Ackman, "activist investor" and Founder/CEO of Pershing Capital Management

General Growth Properties is an example. His $50 million stock investment is worth about $1.3 billion today, making General Growth the most successful investment of his career "by far," Ackman said.

Ackman began buying shares of the company in late 2008, at the height of the financial crisis. Where others saw a company careening toward bankruptcy, Ackman saw equity.

Ackman's political donations for 2008 are posted here.

MetLife has been in negotiations for bailed out AIG's American Life Insurance (ALICO) division.

Now, I'm not saying that anyone's done anything wrong here. I'm just saying it's Chicago, and most people who follow the news are focused on other things, and I sure wish that someone with a business reporting background would take a look at this deal, because my spider sense is tingling.

UPDATE: Thanks for the Malkilanche, Michelle!

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Share
Tagged as: , , , , , , 2 Comments
14Jun/100

Oh my; 49% of Americans think Democrats are too liberal

The Brain Trust?

That is, according to the notoriously Reich-wing OberGruppenFuhrer McPollster...Gallup ?!? I mean, I'm shocked, SHOCKED! at this result, as I'm sure you are too.

Not only is this figure currently signifigant, it is only 1 point lower than the all time high of 50% recorded...wait for it...following the upset 1994 mid-term elections !

In the past two years, Americans have become increasingly likely to describe the Democratic Party’s views as “too liberal” (49%), and less likely to say its views are “about right” (38%). Americans’ views of the Republican Party, on the other hand, have moderated slightly, with a dip in the percentage saying the GOP is too conservative from 43% last year to 40% today, and an increase in the percentage saying it is about right, from 34% to 41%.

The recent increase in perceptions of the Democratic Party as too liberal could be a response to the expansion in government spending since President Barack Obama took office, most notably regarding the economic stimulus and healthcare legislation.

The 49% of Americans who now believe the Democratic Party’s views are too liberal is one percentage point below the 50% Gallup measured after the 1994 elections, the all-time high in the trend question first asked in 1992.

This doesn't look too good for the most ethical party-EVAR!-going into the midterm election cycle.  So, not only have O!&Co. pretty much lost the independants, with their approval deficit standing at 19% (33/52 on Democrat ideological position "about right" vs. too liberal), but this seems to auger a coming fail in their strategy to paint the Republicans as too extreme and to, once again, blame the nation's woes on Boooooooooooooooosh!

Cap'n Ed at Hot air opines that those strategeries might have had a shot before the post-partisan President and most Transparent!, Effective!, and Ethical! Congress rammed through Obamacare, and he goes on to observe:

In November 1994, the split for “too liberal/about right” was 42/40.  Post-election, it was 50/32.  That bodes ill for Democrats in this cycle as it stands today — but Democrats haven’t stopped spending in 2010, either.  If Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid try pushing cap-and-tax through the Senate, they may get to the 1994 post-election number sooner.

Looks like if public opinion keeps trending this way then, you know, some of the usual suspects in Washington are gonna have to start thinking about getting a real job...

(H/T Hot Air on the story, and to Ace on the Obergruppenfuhrer McPollster snark!)

Rocketman

Share
Tagged as: , , , No Comments
1Dec/090

Change! you can believe in.

Some interesting statistics from the folks that get paid to wet their fingers and get a sense of from which direction the winds of public opinion are blowing.  I'm talking, of course, about Rasmussen reports; and here are some of today's takes:

The lastest polls on the partisan affiliation of the public shows the percentage of people calling themselves "Democrats" has declined by 7% during 2009.  The current breakdown, in percentage, is 36/33/31 (Dem/Rep/Independant).  I wonder how the folks at the DNC are diggin' that "change"?  Oh, and as a bonus, Scotty R. reminds us:

Keep in mind that figures reported in this article are for all adults, not likely voters. Republicans are a bit more likely to participate in elections than Democrats.

Closely related to this analysis is the matter of just who does the public place their confidence in to handle the issues facing our nation:

Voters remain more confident in Republicans than in Democrats this month on virtually all of the key electoral issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports. But that confidence is not quite as strong as a month ago when the GOP led on all 10 [categories].

Republicans narrowly (within 10 points)  inspire more confidence in the public on the issues of Health Care, Iraq, Abortion, Immigration, and Government ethics.  And regarding National Security, Taxes, and the economy they enjoy a double-digit margin of trust over the Democrats.  I'm no expert, but in 10 short months the Democrats have squandered all of the public goodwill they have spent years, screaming "I Blame Booooooosh!", to acquire.

Next, lets check out how Americans are disposed towards all of the Smart! governance these days.  Surprise!

Seventy-one percent (71%) of voters nationwide say they’re at least somewhat angry about the current policies of the federal government. That figure includes 46% who are Very Angry.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that only 27% are not angry about the government's policies, including 10% who are Not at All Angry.

Oh, and that figure's up 5 points since September.  That doesn't bode to well for the Brilliant! idea of the government taking over a substantial portion of the economy...

Finally, there's old faithful, the Daily Presidential tracking poll.  Today, 47% of those polled at least somewhat approve of Mr. Obama's performance; and the approval index stands at -13.

Some interesting tidbits, eh?  I suggest you bookmark Rasmussen's site, since he's got a demonstrated track record as the most accurate pollster in the business.

Rocketman

Share
Tagged as: , , , No Comments
1Sep/096

A two-fer; Democrats display their hypocrisy and psychosis of projection

There’s been a lot of faux outrage in Democrat circles about how the “tea-baggers” and town hall health care opponents are, in reality, professionally organized mobs who are only intent on “shouting down” the opposition.  Like many, I am amused at the irony of the party that invented “shouting down”, and who so effectively used flash mobs of brown-shirt astroturfers in the 2008 Presidential campaign, whining like spoiled children when their legislative agenda is thwarted by actual “grassroots” groups of ordinary concerned citizens; as well as when they project their own usual methodology and tactics onto that same agitated opposition.

It kind of reminds me of the phony self-righteousness of the MSM; holding conservatives to a higher standard than liberals because of the hypocrisy.  I guess that in a universe where there were actually objective mainstream news sources, videos like these posted by Cap’n Ed, from Arizona and Illinois, would receive a lot of play because they expose the usual rank hypocrisy of the Democrat’s public assertions regarding any and all opponent; and after all, that’s what the MSM is concerned about exposing, eh?

Not.So.Much…

No, to actually report on these kind of episodes would disrupt the meta-narrative that the MSM is trying to craft for Obamacare.  And, it might have the horrible unintended consequence of legitimizing the protesters and their grievances.  We can’t have that! Not when dedicated journalists shills like Chris “Tingle” Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Eugene Robinson are doing their duty!, trying to ensure that the Obama Presidency is successful.

But, unfortunately for people of their ilk, a large portion of the public is focused on this debate, and get word of mouth and talk radio reports of this kind of chicanery. And so ultimately this might just be a win-win for conservatives.  Not only might Obamacare be defeated, but so too might the reality of the bias and duplicity of the media be substantially impressed in the public consciousness in such a way that their propaganda will have far less impact in the future.

I mean, we can all see how well it’s working.  Just look at Obama’s soaring approval ratings!

 

UPDATE: Ooops! Spoke too soon.  Make that a trifecta.  It seems that suddenly the MSM feels that a candidates college writings are vitally important !1!1!!eleventy. Well at least when that candidate is, you know, a large state Republican in a tight race!

Rocketman

Share
Tagged as: , , , , , , , , 6 Comments
31Aug/0912

The “stretch run” for Obama’s health care plan

The passing of Ted Kennedy seems to have given the Democrats new resolve to pass Obamacare.  And generally, they are trying to be careful not to overtly try to capitalize off of his death.  Still, I believe that many people will see through the obviously adult scripted remarks given Teddy’s grandson to read at the funeral eulogy as being another contrived episode like the unusually erudite 11 year old girl’s question to Obama at one of his health care town hall meetings.

 

While subtlety is the order of the day for some on the left, others are allowing the mask to slip a bit.  Like Senate majority leader Reid, who told interviewers that he believed Kennedy’s death would help them pass the health care legislation.  Still others, like former Vice President Al Gore, are appealing to morality; citing Matthews Gospel and declaring, “The country has a moral duty to pass health care reform-This Year!”. For his part, former President Clinton, like many other Democrats, is trying to rally the party faithful and downplaying the furor of the people at town hall fora during August;

 “You need to back these congressmen and let them know you’re not going to let them be steamrollered by a bunch of people who have been frightened,” Clinton said, in reference to the town hall tumult of the last few weeks. “Don’t let anybody tell you that President Obama wants to ration health care. We are rationing health care in America.”

People who’ve been frightened?  Shouldn’t he instead speak of people who’ve actually learned what is in the bill,  what it will ultimately cost in dollars as well as in quality of American health care?  It’s fascinating to watch the masters of fear-mongering, who regularly accused Republicans of plotting to cut medicare, and who are planning to do so themselves, intead accuse rank and file people across America with being scared into action, once again, by the Republicans.

What’s even more fascinating is the to-the-wall effort being expended; the usual, “by any means necessary” approach.  The New York Times has put aside any pretense by calling for the “nuclear” option of simple majority vote in the Senate; an act of parlimentary prestidigitation that would reveal Obama’s post-partisan demagoguery as the palaver it really is.  Still others are reaching for an old standby, the race card; such as Congresswoman Watson who insists that Obamacare opponents, “are trying to destroy the first President who looks like me!”.  But the most often employed measure, one that has worked most effectively in the past, is to have the Democrat’s allies in the MSM basically non-report on the contents of the actual legislation, scream breathlessly that the Republicans are not willing to play nice with Obama, and desperately hope that any actual reporting being done on the bill gets as little exposure as possible; like the fact’s uncovered by Freddoso and confirmed by the CRS that Obamacare will cover illegal immigrants!

But, all of this is just another number in what has become familiar Kabuki Theater.  It’s not a question of, “if”, the Democrats will try to capitalize off of Ted Kennedy’s death, but only “how” they will try to do so.  The only real question that remains is what will they call it?  Obamacare, as has come into popular editorial usage, ChapiquiddiCare, as Ace likes to refer to it, or, maybe, KopechneCare…

UPDATE: Andrew Breitbart weighs in on what is hopefully the end of the MSM's cover for America's royalty.

Rocketman

Share
Tagged as: , , , , , , , , , , 12 Comments
   

Follow Dan!

Creature Commentariat

Categories

Recent Grist

Feed the Kraken.

Sponsors

Dress Shop

Blogroll

Switch to our mobile site