Area417

Initial Thoughts on the S. C. Democratic Debate

 

It went something like this:

 

You Tuber: My life sucks 'cause minimum wage doesn't pay enough. How am I supposed to raise 5 kids on minimum wage?

Democrat's answer: This is the richest country in the world! Nobody should have to flip burgers for less than $10/hour.

You Tuber: But I still won't be able to afford healthcare for all those kids on $10 bucks an hour!

Democrats: This is the richest country in the world! We'll give everyone healthcare!

You Tuber: Obama, are you really black?

Obama: I'm blacker than Bill Clinton, you twit.

Hillary: I'm not black, but I'm not butch. I'm wearing pink!

You Tuber: Yo man. What about reparations for black folk. You gonna fork it over?

Kucinich: Sure!

Obama: Have you considered educating yourself? Twit.

Rest of Dems: WTF?! Uh, no.

Gravel: In my lucid moments, I have good ideas.

 

Me: America, we're so screwed.

Frau Clinton Knows Best

According to Drudge, Senators Stalin Clinton and Boxer are going to "do something" about talk radio, which we can assume means resuscitating the Fairness Doctrine.

Snarky Journalism: Washington Post's Dana Milbank

I'm not a Kucinich fan, but I'm annoyed by Dana Milbank's article, Kucinich's Battle Against Cheney Not So (Im)Peachy Keen, in today's Washington Post.

Rather than an intelligent discussion on the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Kucinich's drive to impeach Vice President Cheney, Milbank used the article as an occasion to make sly digs at a presidential candidate for whom he obviously has no respect.

There were the inevitable snarks about Kucinich's appearance:

[...] Standing perhaps 5 feet 6 inches tall in shoes, he wore a solemn face as he approached the microphones, which nearly reached his eye level. He beckoned to aides, who handed out thick binders detailing the case."

Kucinich read at length from his articles of impeachment,undeterred by rush-hour traffic noise on Independence Avenue ("I'll wait till the truck goes by here," he said at one point) and wind that ruffled his text and the few strands of his hair that were insufficiently weighted by Brylcreem.

Milbank made sure readers knew that other Democrats weren't taking this seriously:

[...] A reporter from the Cleveland Plain Dealer encouraged USS Kucinich to contact planet Earth. "But Nancy Pelosi says this is not going anywhere," she pointed out.

And this:

[...]

Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), chairman of the House Democratic caucus, was equally dismissive -- "Dennis can do what he wants; I'm not going to support it" -- but used the occasion to try out some Cheney material: "This is the biggest setback for the vice president since oil went under 65 bucks a barrel."

While we can surmise this is a ploy by Kucinich to grab some attention, I'm wondering what tone Milbank (or Rahm Emanuel for that matter) would have taken if Clinton or Obama had been the one to call this news conference.

Not that that is likely to happen; it would ruin Clinton's new centrism, and Obama couldn't find a way to wax poetic on the subject.

On Earmarks, Social Security, and B.S.

$300,00 for mapping the catfish genome? $2.5 million for a virtual spray paint simulator system?

ABC news recently did a spot on Americans For Prosperity's crusade to end such dubious earmarks. You can see the video here.

***

Speaking of earmarks, the Democrat overlords refused to let real earmark reform come to a vote.

Senator DeMint's bill, S. Res. 123 would expose those guilty of saddling the public with their pork projects by posting the bill, with the requester's (and recipient's) name attached, on the internet at least 48 hours prior to consideration. 

Such a system would go a long way toward helping voters identify which Senators are wasting our money.

Our own Senator McCaskill was one of five cosponsors of DeMint's bill, so kudos to Claire! I've had harsh words for her in the past, but I must give credit when credit is due.

Pat Toomey, president of The Club for Growth, had this to say:

The Democratic leadership passed earmark reform unanimously when the issue was hot, but now that the appropriation process is under way and its special-interest cronies are knocking at its doors, it is all too eager to sweep the issue under the rug,” Mr. Toomey continued. “Democratic leaders want to tell taxpayers they voted for earmark reform out of one side of their mouths, but brag about their pork-filled goody bags out of the other side. American taxpayers will see through this hypocritical charade.

***

McCaskill was the only Dem who voted for S.Amdt 489, which would have protected Social Security funds from unrelated spending by established a reserve. (Republicans should heap scorn on Olympia Snowe (ME) and Senator Smith of Oregon for voting against this amendment.)

I hope voters remember that Democrats, known for their demagoguery of  Social Security, voted against this amendment.

Looks like the Dems just exposed their real motives for rejecting privatizing Social Security and it has nothing to do with your retirement.

Sunday Shorts

It's Sloth-in-a-Box!

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards vows to create more bureaucracy and spend $3 billion a year to educate children in OTHER COUNTRIES.

Government Bytes! notes that the new Democratic Senate won't cut spending even on programs that are rated "Ineffective."

Claire McCaskill: Politics As Usual

Missouri's junior senator knows which side her bread is buttered on.

While on the stump, she knew voters were sick of the undue influence of lobbyists, so she styled herself as a crusader for change. The banner on McCaskill's campaign site still trumpets "Claire McCaskill, Bringing Real Change and Accountability to Washington" and features her "15 point plan to make sure Washington works for us."

But, like most politicians, once she arrived in Washington, it was a different story:

Sen. Claire McCaskill, a Missouri Democrat, won election last year with a populist campaign bashing special interests and corporate lobbyists. This week, she invited dozens of them to a fundraiser: $1,000 per political action committee, $500 per individual. Among the invitees were some of Washington's biggest interests: Big Ag, Big Pharmaceutical, Big Telecom, Big Tobacco.

Hosting the fundraiser: Blackwell Sanders, a law and lobbying firm that Richard Martin, McCaskill's campaign manager, just went to work for as a "government affairs" specialist. (Sterns, Matt. Culture of money, access enduring under Democratic control McClatchy Washington Bureau

Do you suppose the clients of Blackwell Sanders (listed here on Open Secrets) will have easy access to McCaskill's office?

McCaskill defended herself, noting that it takes mountains of money to get elected. "Each individual senator has to make sure that their moral compass stays sharp and that they don't blow the line." (Hananel, Sam. McCaskill raises money from "broken system" she wants to change Kansas City Star)

Louisiana Congressman Taped Pocketing Bribe

New Orleans Congressman William Jefferson (D) was  videotaped eagerly accepting $100,00 in payola from an FBI informant.

At one audiotaped meeting, Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., chuckles about writing in code to keep secret what the government contends was his corrupt role in getting his children a cut of a communications company's deal for work in Africa.

      As Jefferson and the informant passed notes about what percentage the                    lawmaker's family might receive, the congressman "began laughing and said, 'All these damn notes we're writing to each other as if we're talking, as if the FBI is watching," according to the affidavit. Link: USA Today

If the name sounds familiar, it might be because Jefferson had National Guardsmen attending to his personal property while the floodwaters of Katrina held citizens of New Orleans at bay on their rooftops.

Democrats, do start chanting "culture of corruption" whenever the mood strikes you.

Clarification: Both audio and vidiotapes exist.         

Powered by Qumana
Tags: Politics, Democrats, Corruption

Bush's Base Betrayal

Richard Viguerie has an excellent article in today's Washington Post about how conservatives have been utterly betrayed by the President and the GOP.

Conservatives tolerated the No Child Left Behind Act, an extensive intrusion into state and local education, and the budget-busting Medicare prescription drug benefit. They tolerated the greatest increase in spending since Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society. They tolerated Bush's failure to veto a single bill, and his refusal to enforce immigration laws. They even tolerated his signing of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance overhaul, even though Bush's opposition to that measure was a key reason they backed him over Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) in the 2000 primaries.

Bush talks the talks, but seldom walks the walk.

Conservatives can thank President Bush for Judges Roberts and Alito, (though Alito came after the disastrous nomination of Harriet Miers).

And we have him to thank for tax cuts and a booming economy (of which the average Joe seems blissfully unaware).

Sixty-five months into Bush's presidency, conservatives feel betrayed. After the "Bridge to Nowhere" transportation bill, the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and the Dubai Ports World deal, the immigration crisis was the tipping point for us.

Viguerie notes the obvious:

[...]

congressional Republicans have sold themselves to conservatives as the continuation of the Reagan revolution. We were told that they would take on the Washington special interests -- that they would, in essence, tear down K Street and sow the earth with salt to make sure nothing ever grew there again.

Instead, that earth is hog wallow. Republicans have tasted pork and can't get enough of "the other white meat."

He continues:

But unhappy conservatives should be taken seriously. When conservatives are unhappy, bad things happen to the Republican Party.

[...]

In 1992, conservatives were so unhappy with President George H.W. Bush's open disdain for them that they staged an open rebellion, first with the candidacy of Patrick J. Buchanan and then with Ross Perot. The result was an incumbent president receiving a paltry 37 percent of the vote. In 1998, conservatives were demoralized by congressional Republicans' wild spending and their backing away from conservative ideas. The result was an unexpected loss of seats in the House and the resignation of Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.).

The current record of Washington Republicans is so bad that, without a drastic change in direction, millions of conservatives will again stay home this November.

And maybe they should. Conservatives are beginning to realize that nothing will change until there's a change in the GOP leadership. If congressional Republicans win this fall, they will see themselves as vindicated, and nothing will get better.

Exactly.

Does that mean that I suggest that conservatives voice their discontent by voting for Democrats? Only if you're a Socialist at heart.

Can the Libertarian Party capitalize on the Republican disaster? (To be continued)

Link: Washington Post: Bush's Base Betrayal.

Check out the following for more on this subject: The foolishness of tribal loyalties